Background
Maria Lily Alvarenga and her son, E.D.B.A., are Honduran nationals who entered the United States unlawfully in April 2019. After Alvarenga admitted that she was a Honduran citizen and lacked a visa or passport when she arrived at the border, an immigration judge found her removable.
Alvarenga sought asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture based on MS-13’s attempts to recruit her son. After he refused, gang members threatened to kidnap him and to “do something” to Alvarenga. Her son stopped attending school to avoid the gang, but MS-13 never physically harmed Alvarenga or carried out the kidnapping threats. Alvarenga did not report the gang’s conduct to law enforcement. The immigration judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review. Assuming without deciding that procedural errors occurred during the removal proceedings, the court held that Alvarenga failed to establish prejudice. She identified no plausible basis for concluding that she was lawfully present or entitled to admission and did not explain what evidence she could have presented had the immigration judge asked additional questions.
The court also upheld the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Alvarenga’s proposed social group—Honduran citizens who refused to comply with gang demands—was not sufficiently particular or socially distinct, and generalized resistance to gang recruitment did not establish persecution based on an actual or imputed political opinion. Because she failed to satisfy the asylum standard, she necessarily failed to meet the more demanding standard for withholding of removal.
Substantial evidence also supported denial of CAT protection. Alvarenga never reported the gang’s conduct to Honduran police and therefore did not show that officials had prior awareness of a threat of torture. Her generalized assertions that criminal organizations had infiltrated Honduras’s police and judiciary did not establish that public officials would acquiesce or remain willfully blind to her torture.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration due-process claim requires both a fundamental procedural error and prejudice; speculation that further questioning might have produced helpful evidence is insufficient.
- Resistance to gang demands, without more, does not constitute a sufficiently particular and socially distinct group or establish persecution based on imputed political opinion.
- General evidence of criminal infiltration of government institutions does not by itself prove official acquiescence required for CAT protection.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the evidentiary burdens facing noncitizens who base claims for relief on gang recruitment and threats. Applicants must connect feared persecution to a legally protected ground and must support procedural challenges with a concrete showing that the alleged error could have changed the outcome.
For CAT claims involving private actors, broad evidence of corruption or criminal influence is not enough. Petitioners must provide evidence tying public officials to prior awareness, consent, acquiescence, or willful blindness concerning the anticipated torture.