Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortappealburden of proof
tortburden of proof

Related Cases

Pierre v. Gonzales
View Case »
Lamin v. Holder
View Case »
Pereyra-Gabino; U.S. v.
View Case »
Granados v. Garland
View Case »
Razic; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pineda-Teruel v. Garland

Facts

Jose Edin Pineda-Teruel, a citizen of Honduras, illegally entered the United States in 2007 and was removed in 2017. After attempting to reenter in 2019, he filed for withholding of removal and CAT protection, claiming threats from a mafia group in Honduras due to his perceived wealth from living in the U.S. He testified about being robbed and extorted by individuals he believed were affiliated with the mafia, who later killed his cousins. Despite relocating within Honduras, he feared for his life and sought protection in the U.S.

Pineda-Teruel is a citizen and native of Honduras, where he owns a coffee farm. He first entered the United States in 2007 and was removed to Honduras ten years later, on June 14, 2017, pursuant to an order of removal. He subsequently reentered the United States in May 2019 and was apprehended at the border. Pineda-Teruel applied for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), 8 C.F.R. 1208.16-1208.18.

Issue

Did Pineda-Teruel establish the required nexus between any past persecution or risk of future persecution and a statutorily protected ground for withholding of removal under the INA and CAT?

Did Pineda-Teruel establish the required nexus between any past persecution or risk of future persecution and a statutorily protected ground for withholding of removal under the INA and CAT?

Rule

To be eligible for withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant must establish that he has suffered past persecution or that there is a clear probability of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

To be eligible for withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant must establish that he has suffered past persecution or that there is a clear probability of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Analysis

The court found that Pineda-Teruel did not establish a nexus between his fear of harm and any statutorily protected ground. His claims were based on the mafia's belief that he had money due to his time in the U.S., rather than any status as a landowner. The immigration judge considered the evidence, including the murder of his cousins, but concluded that Pineda-Teruel's fears were speculative and did not meet the burden of proof for CAT protection.

The IJ denied Pineda-Teruel's application. With respect to withholding of removal under the INA, the IJ found that Pineda-Teruel failed to establish past persecution and failed to establish likelihood of future persecution if he were to relocate within Honduras. The IJ also found that there was no nexus between Pineda-Teruel's fear of harmwhich was due to the mafia's belief that he had money from his time in the United Statesand any claimed status as a member of a statutorily protected social group, a required element for a successful withholding of removal claim under the INA.

Conclusion

The court denied Pineda-Teruel's petition for review, affirming the decisions of the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The petition is DENIED.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because Pineda-Teruel failed to demonstrate the necessary nexus for withholding of removal and did not meet the burden of proof for CAT protection.

The government prevailed in the case because Pineda-Teruel failed to demonstrate the necessary nexus for withholding of removal and did not meet the burden of proof for CAT protection.

You must be