Case Explained: ERICK JESUS FLORES-TURCIOS v. TODD W. BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-16

The Fourth Circuit denied Erick Jesus Flores-Turcios’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s factual findings that Flores-Turcios failed to establish the required nexus between his persecution and a protected ground, and that he did not meet the higher standard for CAT relief. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court applied the “one central reason” standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), requiring the petitioner to prove that membership in a particular social group was a central, rather than incidental, reason for his persecution. The court found that the Board’s conclusion—that the MS-13 gang targeted Flores-Turcios for economic reasons (extortion and recruitment) rather than his youth or resistance to recruitment—was supported by substantial evidence. The record indicated the gang imposed demands on everyone in its territory, and Flores-Turcios provided no specific evidence that his age or beliefs were a central factor in the gang’s decision to target him specifically. Because he failed to satisfy the nexus requirement for asylum, he could not meet the “clear probability” standard required for withholding of removal. Regarding the CAT claim, the court reviewed the Board’s findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. The court rejected Flores-Turcios’s procedural argument that the Board failed to distinguish between factual and legal determinations, finding the Board’s shorthand consistent with the required bifurcated standard of review. On the merits, the court affirmed that the record did not compel a finding that Guatemalan officials would acquiesce in torture. The IJ found that while police are understaffed, they actively investigate gang crimes and conduct anti-gang operations, and there was no evidence that officials would turn a blind eye to Flores-Turcios’s specific situation given he had never reported the extortion attempts. The practical consequence is that the petition for review is denied, leaving in place the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying all forms of relief from removal. While the Board had remanded the issue of voluntary departure, the court affirmed its jurisdiction to review the final order denying relief and concluded that the petitioner’s challenges to the substantive denials were without merit.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.