Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3618
591
Matter of E-A-G-, Respondent
Decided July 30, 2008
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
(1) The respondent, a young Honduran male, failed to establish that he was a member of a
particular social group of “persons resistant to gang membership,” as the evidence failed
to establish that members of Honduran society, or even gang members themselves, would
perceive those opposed to gang membership as members of a social group.
(2) Because membership in a criminal gang cannot constitute membership in a particular
social group, the respondent could not establish that he was a member of a particular social
group of “young persons who are perceived to be affiliated with gangs” based on the
incorrect perception by others that he is such a gang member.
FOR RESPONDENT: Scott R. Pasierb, Esquire, Richmond, Virginia
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Nancy A. Kryzanowski,
Assistant Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: FILPPU, COLE, and PAULEY, Board Members.
FILPPU, Board Member:
In a decision dated May 3, 2005, an Immigration Judge found the
respondent removable but granted his application for asylum pursuant to
section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (2000
& Supp. V 2005). The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has filed
a timely appeal contesting the Immigration Judge’s grant of asylum. The
appeal will be sustained, and the record will be remanded to the Immigration
Judge for further proceedings and for the entry of a new decision.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Facts
The respondent, a native and citizen of Honduras, conceded removability
in proceedings before the Immigration Judge but requested relief based on his
claim of persecution. At his hearing, the respondent testified that his eldest
brother was a member of the Mara Salvatrucha (“MS”) gang in Honduras forCite as 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3618
592
3 months and was shot and killed in 2001 at the age of 16 by members of a
rival gang, “The 18,” during a “gang war.” He indicated that the person
primarily responsible for his brother’s death was a person nicknamed “The
Spy,” and that he believed that his mother had filed a police report about the
killing. He stated that “The Spy” was subsequently arrested by the police, but
that he was unsure whether it was because of his brother’s death or other
reasons, as “The Spy” had committed many other crimes. He indicated that he
did not know whether anyone in his family had ever followed up on the crime
report filed after his brother’s death.
Similarly, the respondent testified that a second brother subsequently joined
the MS at age 18 and was killed by other members of the MS in 2003 at age
19, after only 5 or 6 months of membership. According to the respondent, his
second brother was killed because he became a Christian and left the MS,
which the gang would not allow. He indicated that his grandparents filed a
police report, and that he believed that this case was still open, with the
Honduran police still investigating the death. The respondent testified that he
was approached by his cousin, an MS member, on several occasions and asked
if he wanted to join the MS, but the respondent said no each time, to which his
cousin replied, “No problem.”
The respondent indicated that following the deaths of his brothers, persons
he believed to be gang members issued written and oral threats to his mother
on three occasions telling her to take the family and leave their home.
However, he testified that he did not know why they wanted the family to
leave. The respondent stated that following a threat in 2004, all of his family
except him left for another town, but he remained behind in school. The
respondent did not claim to have experienced any harm or threats of harm
while he remained behind, and he noted that his mother and the rest of the
family moved back to their hometown a few months later, as they discovered
that there was a lot of gang violence in the other town as well. He indicated
that the last threat his mother received was in 2005, in the form of a note
telling her to vacate her home within 3 months. However, he testified that she
did not leave as instructed, and that nothing has since happened to her or any
other family members as a result.
B. Immigration Judge’s Decision
The Immigration Judge found the respondent to be credible. She
determined that while the respondent had not experienced any past persecution
in Honduras, he had met his burden of showing that he has a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of a protected ground under the Act. The
Immigration Judge specifically found that the respondent would be targeted for
persecution by gang members because of his “youth and affiliation orCite as 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3618
593
perceived affiliation with gangs,” as well as his imputed political opinion. The
Immigration Judge indicated that because she was granting asylum, she did not
find it necessary to reach the issues of the respondent’s eligibility for
withholding of removal pursuant to section 241(b)(3) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) (2000), and for protection under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res.
39/46. 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984)
(entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988)
(“Convention Against Torture”), pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005).
II. ANALYSIS
The Immigration Judge found, and we agree, that the respondent did not
experience any past persecution in Honduras. Neither party argues
otherwise on appeal. However, we disagree with the Immigration Judge’s
determination that the respondent has sustained his burden of showing that he
has a well-founded fear of persecution in Honduras on account of a protected
ground under the Act. Sections 101(a)(42)(A), 208(b)(1)(B) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B) (2006).
A. Particular Social Group
The Immigration Judge found that the respondent was a member of the
particular social groups of “young persons who are perceived to be affiliated
with gangs (as perceived by the government and/or the general public)” and
“persons resistant to gang membership (refusing to join when recruited).” To
establish that he is a member of a “particular social group,” an applicant must
show that he is a member of a group of persons sharing a common
characteristic that they either cannot change or should not be required to
change because it is “fundamental to their individual identities or
consciences.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citing Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233-34 (BIA 1985), which rejected
a claimed social group of Salvadoran taxi drivers because the characteristics
that defined them were not beyond their power to change or so fundamental
that change ought not be required).
In a decision published as a companion to this case, we set forth in some
detail the history of the evolving case law at both the Board and the various
Federal circuit courts of appeals concerning particular social groups, and the
reader is referred to that decision for a more in-depth historical overview. See
Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 579 (BIA 2008) (holding that neither
Salvadoran youth who refused recruitment into the MS-13 criminal gang norCite as 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3618
594
their family members constitute a particular social group). In recent years, we
have issued a line of cases reaffirming the particular social group formula set
forth in Matter of Acosta, supra, and providing further clarification regarding
its proper application. See Matter of A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 2007)
(indicating that young Bambara women who oppose arranged marriage
were not a particular social group); Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U-, 24 I&N Dec.
69, 74-75 (BIA 2007) (holding that “affluent Guatemalans” did not constitute
a particular social group); Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951, 959-61 (BIA
2006) (finding that noncriminal informants working against the Cali drug
cartel in Colombia were not a particular social group), aff’d, Castillo-Arias
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied sub nom.
Castillo-Arias v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 977 (2007). In each of these cases, we
emphasized that the purported group’s social visibility—i.e., the extent to
which members of a society perceive those with the characteristic in question
as members of a social group—is of particular importance in determining
whether an alien is a member of a claimed particular social group. See, e.g.,
Matter of C-A-, supra (indicating that the social visibility of the members of
a claimed social group is an important consideration in identifying the
existence of a particular social group for the purpose of determining whether
a person qualifies as a refugee).
In Matter of A-T-, supra, at 303, we expressed skepticism that young
Bambara women who oppose arranged marriage “have the kind of social
visibility that would make them readily identifiable to those who would be
inclined to persecute them,” and thus declined to find such a particular social
group. Similarly, in Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U-, supra, at 74-75, we found
that the respondents had failed to establish that their status as “affluent
Guatemalans” gave them sufficient social visibility to be perceived as a group
by society. Finally, in Matter of C-A-, supra, at 960, we indicated that
government informants were insufficiently recognizable as a group to others,
noting that the very nature of the conduct of confidential informants is such
that it is generally out of the public view.
Applying these standards, we find that the particular social group identified
by the Immigration Judge as “persons resistant to gang membership” lacks the
social visibility that would allow others to identify its members as part of such
a group. Persons who resist joining gangs have not been shown to be part of
a socially visible group within Honduran society, and the respondent does not
allege that he possesses any characteristics that would cause others in
Honduran society to recognize him as one who has refused gang recruitment.
Of course, individuals who resist gang recruitment may face the risk of harm
from the rejected gang. But such a risk would arise from the individualized
reaction of the gang to the specific behavior of the prospective recruit. There
is no showing that membership in a larger body of persons resistant to gangsCite as 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3618
595
is of concern to anyone in Honduras, including the gangs themselves, or that
individuals who are part of that body of persons are seen as a segment of the
population in any meaningful respect.
Similarly, while the respondent, as a young, urban male in Honduras, might
well be suspected by others to have been approached by gangs seeking his
membership, and to have rejected such overtures, we have previously held that
a purely statistical showing is not by itself sufficient proof of the existence of
a persecuted group. Our case law establishes that a “social group” analysis
must focus on fundamental characteristics and social visibility within the
country in question. The focus is not with statistical or actuarial groups, or
with artificial group definitions. Rather, the focus is on the existence and
visibility of the group in the society in question and on the importance of the
pertinent group characteristic to the members of the group.
Thus, in Matter of Sanchez and Escobar, 19 I&N Dec. 276, 285 (BIA
1985), aff’d sub nom. Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571 (9th Cir. 1986),
we rejected the respondent’s claim that he was a member of the particular
social group of “young (18 to 30 years of age), urban, working-class males of
military age who have not served in the military or otherwise affirmatively
demonstrated their support for the Government of El Salvador.” We found
that “[i]t is not enough to simply identify the common characteristics of a
statistical grouping of a portion of the population at risk.” Id. Rather, we
determined that there must be a showing that the claimed persecution is on
account of the group’s identifying characteristics. Id. at 285-86. No such
showing has been made here.
As to the second particular social group identified by the Immigration
Judge, i.e., “young persons who are perceived to be affiliated with gangs,” the
issue of social visibility is less clear-cut. Gang affiliation or membership is a
recognized evil within Honduran society, and members of gangs are viewed
with hostility by society at large. Clearly, rival gangs recognize each other,
often with disdain leading to violent confrontations. Gang membership does,
therefore, entail some “social visibility.” However, as explained below, we
reject this particular social group for other reasons.
It does not appear that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit has yet had an opportunity to address the question whether gang
membership, or, in this case, the perception of being a gang member or
“affiliated” with gangs, is a proper basis for finding a particular social group
to exist. However, a sister circuit has recently issued a precedent decision that
we find instructive on this issue. In Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 (9th
Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit considered whether an alien’s membership in a
violent criminal gang, including his status as a former or “inactive” gang
member, could constitute a particular social group for immigration law
purposes. The Ninth Circuit offered the following observation:Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3618
596
[E]ven if we focus our inquiry not on Arteaga’s [gang-related] tattoos, but on his
unique and shared experience as a gang member, this characteristic is materially at
war with those we have concluded are innate for purposes of membership in a social
group. Arteaga’s “shared past experience” includes violent criminal activity. We
cannot conclude that Congress, in offering refugee protection for individuals facing
potential persecution through social group status, intended to include violent street
gangs who assault people and who traffic in drugs and commit theft.
Arteaga v. Mukasey, supra, at 945-46 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the
Ninth Circuit held that membership in a gang would not constitute membership
in a particular social group. We agree.
Treating affiliation with a criminal organization as being protected
membership in a social group is inconsistent with the principles underlying the
bars to asylum and withholding of removal based on criminal behavior. See
sections 208(b)(2), 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act. Of course, the respondent in this
case is not, and has never been, a member of any criminal gang. Moreover, we
recognize that persons such as the respondent who are subject to gang
recruitment can face genuine human dilemmas. Nevertheless, because we
agree that membership in a criminal gang cannot constitute a particular social
group, the respondent cannot establish particular social group status based on
the incorrect perception by others that he is such a gang member. See also
Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2003) (rejecting the alien’s
claim that, as a tattooed former gang member, he was entitled to withholding
of removal as a member of a social group).
B. Political Opinion
We also disagree with the Immigration Judge’s determination that the
respondent faces persecution in Honduras on account of his political opinion.
While not entirely clear, it appears that the Immigration Judge concluded that
the respondent would be found to have an anti-MS “political opinion” by
members of MS, a pro-MS “political opinion” by rival gang members, and a
generally pro-gang “political opinion” by the Honduran Government. Initially,
we note that the respondent has not alleged that he fears the Honduran
Government itself, but rather only that he fears violence at the hands of gang
members. Therefore the third basis for political opinion identified by the
Immigration Judge appears to be inapplicable. Indeed, the respondent testified
that he has never had any problems with the police in Honduras.
Moreover, the respondent’s refusal to join MS, without more, does not
constitute a “political opinion.” Nor would any harm befalling the respondent
as a result of such refusal normally be found to be motivated by a political
opinion. In Rivas-Martinez v. INS, 997 F.2d 1143, 1148 (5th Cir. 1993), the
court indicated that an alien seeking asylum to avoid conscription must adduce
some evidence, direct or circumstantial, that her opposition was motivated byCite as 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3618
597
her political opinions, that her political opposition was known to guerrillas,
and that they persecuted her, or likely would do so upon her return, because of
that opinion. No such evidence has been submitted here. On the contrary, the
respondent conceded that when he indicated he was not interested in joining
MS, he was simply told that it was “no problem” and was not further bothered
by MS.
We recognize that the Immigration Judge specifically found that “the gangs
in Honduras are against the government,” and much of her political opinion
analysis focused on this determination. However, as the United States
Supreme Court has stated, persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on
account of political opinion refers to persecution on account of the victim’s
political opinion, not the persecutor’s political opinion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (finding that a Guatemalan guerrilla organization’s
attempt to conscript the alien into its military forces did not necessarily
constitute persecution on account of political opinion).
In this case, no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, has been produced
to show that gangs in Honduras would persecute the respondent because of any
political opinion, real or imputed, that he holds. Instead, any such actions
would appear to be motivated by rivalry between gangs and a desire of rival
gangs to increase their own power and influence and to diminish that of their
rivals. Accordingly, we disagree with the Immigration Judge’s determination
that the respondent would be subject to persecution on account of his political
opinion by gangs in Honduras.
C. Well-Founded Fear
We also disagree with the Immigration Judge’s determination that the
respondent has shown that he has a well-founded fear of harm. The
respondent is not in the same situation as either of his elder brothers, as he is
not, and never has been, a member of the MS or any other gang. Moreover,
while he testified that he was approached by his cousin, an MS member, on
several occasions and asked if he wanted to join the MS, the respondent said
no each time, to which his cousin replied, “No problem.” The respondent did
not testify to any additional attempts to get him to join MS, or of any threats
or harm as a result of his refusal to do so. Although the respondent appears to
suggest that the MS gang members may, one day, change their minds and harm
him because of his past refusal to join them, this suggestion appears to be
entirely speculative. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1137 (5th Cir.
2006) (affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum where the alien’s
professed fear of future persecution was “highly speculative”).
While the respondent testified that gangs came to his house and ordered his
mother to move out within 3 months, he acknowledged that she did not do soCite as 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3618
598
and that no further threats were issued against her. In any case, it does not
appear that these threats were in any way related to the respondent or his
refusal to join a gang, and, in fact, the respondent specifically testified that he
did not know why the gang members wanted his mother to leave. The
respondent testified that gang violence is prevalent in Honduras, but such a
situation does not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See
Campos-Guardado v. INS, 809 F.2d 285, 290 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that
“Congress did not intend to confer eligibility for asylum on all persons who
suffer harm from civil disturbances”). Furthermore, the respondent concedes
that the Honduran Government has passed laws to protect citizens from gang
violence, and in the case of the deaths of both of his brothers, the police took
reports and investigated the crimes, although the respondent had no knowledge
of the results of the investigations. See, e.g., Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910
(5th Cir. 1992) (agreeing with our determination that because the alien’s fear
of persecution was the result of a personal dispute and not the conduct of the
government or a group that the government was unable or unwilling to control,
the alien was not entitled to asylum or withholding of deportation).
III. CONCLUSION
Inasmuch as the respondent has failed to satisfy the lower burden of proof
required to establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he has also failed to
satisfy the clear probability standard required for withholding of removal. See
Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). In addition, the
respondent did not check the box on his Application for Asylum and
Withholding of Removal (Form I-589) indicating that he was seeking
protection under the Convention Against Torture, and at no time during his
hearing did he state that he was seeking such protection or present any
arguments pertaining to such a claim. Accordingly, we find no basis to grant
the respondent protection under the Convention Against Torture or to remand
the record to the Immigration Judge for consideration of such protection.
Nevertheless, in light of Immigration Judge’s statement that she did not
need to address the respondent’s eligibility for voluntary departure pursuant
to section 240B of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c (2000), because of her grant of
asylum, we find it appropriate to remand this matter to the Immigration Judge
for the purpose of determining whether the respondent is seeking, and is
eligible for, this limited form of relief. Accordingly, the DHS’s appeal will be
sustained and the record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge.
ORDER: The appeal of the Department of Homeland Security is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge
for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry
of a new decision.