Catarina Josefina Hernandez-Calel, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor in 2015. She sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging she faced persecution as a member of a particular social group: indigenous Mayan Quiche women. Her claims were based on past abuse by a female employer who hit her for failing to complete physical tasks and a taxi driver who stalked and threatened her with a gun. Although the Immigration Judge found Hernandez-Calel credible, both the IJ and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her claims. The IJ determined that the harm was not inflicted on account of a protected characteristic but was instead the result of private criminal acts. The BIA affirmed this denial, focusing on the lack of a nexus between the harm and her protected status, and deemed her Convention Against Torture claim waived. Hernandez-Calel then appealed to the Sixth Circuit, raising seven issues, though the court noted she had not exhausted most of them before the BIA.
The Sixth Circuit began by addressing the threshold issue of exhaustion. The court explained that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), a petitioner must present specific issues to the BIA before seeking judicial review. Because Hernandez-Calel failed to raise several of her arguments, including challenges to the charging document and the CAT claim, before the BIA, the court could not address them. The court then focused solely on the nexus requirement for asylum and withholding of removal. To qualify for relief, a petitioner must show that a protected ground was at least one central reason for persecution in asylum cases, or at least one reason in withholding cases. The court reviewed the BIA's finding that the harm was not on account of Hernandez-Calel's identity under the substantial evidence standard. The court found that the record supported the conclusion that the employer's abuse was due to Hernandez-Calel's inability to perform physical labor, and the taxi driver's actions were motivated by personal attraction. The court noted that the taxi driver could not have known Hernandez-Calel's ethnic background, as she did not reveal her hometown and her appearance did not indicate it. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner failed to provide evidence connecting the harassment to her status as an indigenous Mayan Quiche woman. The court cited precedent stating that indiscriminate abuse or random private crimes do not constitute persecution; the applicant must show specific targeting based on a protected characteristic. Since the record showed no nexus at all, the court affirmed the lower decisions.
The decision reinforces the strict nexus requirement in immigration cases, clarifying that private crimes motivated by personal or economic reasons do not qualify as persecution even if the victim belongs to a vulnerable social group. The ruling limits the ability of petitioners to claim asylum based on intersecting identities without direct evidence that the persecutor acted with discriminatory intent. The case is remanded with instructions to deny the petition, leaving the BIA's order of removal in place. The decision also serves as a reminder that failure to exhaust administrative remedies by raising all issues before the BIA will result in the waiver of those claims in federal court.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download