Background
Mirian Anabel Robles-Zuniga, a native and citizen of Honduras, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal.
The BIA found that her proposed particular social group of Honduran women lacked particularity. It also found that her proposed groups of abandoned women in Honduras, single and unprotected women in Honduras, and single and unprotected mothers with children in Honduras lacked particularity and social distinction. The BIA relied on binding Fifth Circuit precedent, including Jaco v. Garland and Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr.
For her CAT claim, Robles-Zuniga argued that Honduran authorities would acquiesce in her torture. The agency noted that when she reported an attempted attack by her son’s great-uncle, police detained him for 24 hours, although the matter did not result in a conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. It held that the BIA properly rejected Robles-Zuniga’s proposed particular social groups under controlling circuit precedent. Because the absence of a cognizable social group disposed of her asylum and withholding claims, the court did not address whether she had established the required nexus between the alleged harm and those groups.
The court also held that substantial evidence supported denial of CAT protection because Robles-Zuniga failed to show that the Honduran government would acquiesce in any torture. The failure to obtain a conviction did not establish the state action required under Fifth Circuit precedent, particularly where police had responded to her report by detaining the alleged attacker.
The panel declined to decide whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi changed the applicable standard of review for particular-social-group cognizability. It concluded that the BIA’s determination could be upheld under either de novo or substantial-evidence review.
Key Takeaways
- Proposed particular social groups must satisfy particularity and social-distinction requirements under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Failure to establish a cognizable particular social group is independently dispositive of asylum and withholding claims, allowing the court to bypass the nexus issue.
- Police failure to secure a conviction does not by itself establish governmental acquiescence for CAT purposes, especially when authorities responded to the reported threat.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s existing limits on gender- and status-based particular social groups involving Honduran women. Applicants whose proposed groups resemble those rejected in Jaco and Gonzales-Veliz face a threshold cognizability barrier before the agency or court reaches nexus.
The opinion also underscores that CAT relief requires evidence of governmental involvement or acquiescence, not merely feared private violence or speculation that authorities may fail to prevent it. At the same time, the panel left unresolved whether Urias-Orellana altered the circuit’s standard of review for social-group cognizability.