Petitioners Betzabe Quevedo-Diaz and her minor son, A.R.-Q., natives of Guatemala, sought protection from removal after facing retaliation from a criminal gang. The gang had previously committed financial fraud against the family and later initiated a campaign of retaliation, including filing criminal complaints against the gang and an attempted kidnapping of the son. The immigration judge denied their applications for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the immigration judge's decision in full. The petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the agency overlooked evidence of social distinction and that their experiences constituted torture.
The panel reviewed the immigration judge's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and legal conclusions de novo. Regarding the asylum and withholding of removal claims, the court addressed the petitioners' proposed particular social group: individuals who have publicly opposed a criminal organization and cooperated with authorities. The court held that the immigration judge correctly found no evidence that Guatemalan society perceives or recognizes this group as distinct. The petitioners failed to point to material evidence showing that society views them as a separate group. On the Convention Against Torture claim, the court applied the high bar required for such relief. The petitioners' experiences, including threats and the attempted kidnapping of the son, were deemed to constitute lesser forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment rather than torture. The court noted that there was no evidence indicating it is more likely than not that the petitioners would be tortured if removed to Guatemala. The reliance on generalized conditions in Guatemala did not satisfy the obligation to show a particularized risk of future torture.
The petition for review is denied, and the temporary administrative stay of removal is lifted. The removal order against the petitioners stands. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that asylum seekers must prove their proposed social group is socially distinct in their home country and clarifies that severe mistreatment, while condemnable, does not automatically qualify as torture under the Convention Against Torture without meeting the specific legal definition of severe pain or suffering.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download