Petitioners Flordilia Sucely Miranda-Reyes and her minor daughter, citizens of Guatemala, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. They alleged that gang members had threatened and extorted them due to unpaid debts owed by the mother's deceased grandfather. The immigration judge denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. The petitioners then sought review in the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the agency's findings were erroneous.
The panel applied the substantial evidence standard, which requires that agency findings be conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise. First, regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court affirmed that a petitioner must show a causal link between a protected ground and the harm feared. The record showed the gang's actions were driven by economic interest in collecting debts. Citing Zetino v. Holder, the court noted that a desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft bears no nexus to a protected ground. Second, regarding Convention Against Torture relief, the court held that torture requires extreme forms of cruel and inhuman treatment. While the petitioner testified to being scratched and hit, these acts do not amount to torture under federal regulations. Furthermore, there was no evidence that public officials instigated or acquiesced in the abuse; general government ineffectiveness in preventing crime is legally insufficient to establish the required government acquiescence.
The petition is denied, and the petitioners remain subject to removal to Guatemala. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that gang violence motivated by economic gain does not qualify for asylum, and it clarifies that minor physical abuse and general police ineffectiveness do not satisfy the high bar for Convention Against Torture relief.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download