Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jossue Ricardo Hernandez-Alvarado sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He proposed social groups centered on young Salvadoran men who opposed gangs or cartels because of Catholic beliefs and received death threats, and on Salvadorans returning from the United States who would be perceived as wealthy.
The Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that neither formulation was a legally cognizable “particular social group”—a group defined with sufficient boundaries and recognized as distinct by the relevant society. It also found the evidence insufficient to show that Salvadoran public officials would likely acquiesce in Hernandez-Alvarado’s torture.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. Existing circuit precedent treated broadly framed groups involving young Central American men resisting gangs, returnees from the United States, or people perceived as wealthy as too amorphous or diffuse. The record did not compel a conclusion that Salvadoran society viewed Hernandez-Alvarado’s proposed groups as discrete classes or that gangs targeted returnees because of perceived wealth.
Because the absence of a protected ground disposed of asylum and withholding, the panel did not decide whether the past harm rose to persecution. The agency was entitled to address only the grounds necessary to resolve the applications.
Substantial evidence also supported denial of Convention Against Torture protection. Hernandez-Alvarado did not report or follow up with police about the incidents, and generalized country reports showing some corruption alongside meaningful government anti-gang efforts did not compel a finding that officials would probably acquiesce in torture.
Key Takeaways
- A particular social group must have defined boundaries and social distinction in the country at issue.
- Gang resistance, return from the United States, and perceived wealth remain insufficient when framed broadly and unsupported by society-specific evidence.
- Applicants need evidence connecting the persecutor’s motive to the asserted protected characteristic.
- General reports of corruption may not establish government acquiescence when the record also shows enforcement efforts.
- Failure to seek official help can weaken a CAT claim, though the significance depends on the surrounding evidence.
Why It Matters
For California immigration practitioners, the decision highlights the need to build social-group claims from focused country evidence rather than descriptive labels alone. Expert testimony, local reporting, and proof of how society identifies the group can be decisive, as can evidence showing why gangs targeted the applicant for that characteristic.
CAT claims require a separate record about likely government conduct. Counsel should explain failures to report, document official complicity or willful blindness where available, and distinguish broad crime conditions from evidence specific to the applicant’s likely treatment.