Flores v. Holder, Jr., No. 12-1609 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. Because the basis of the BIA's rejection of petitioner's past persecution claim was unclear, the court remanded to the BIA for clarification. Remand was also necessary because if the BIA was upholding the IJ's adoption of a blanket rule that past persecution to family members could never be the basis for a past persecution claim, this was an incorrect statement of law. Alternatively, if the BIA based its decision on a finding that petitioner's claims of past persecution based on past harms to his family were not on account of a protected ground, the BIA engaged in improper factfinding. The court also remanded to the BIA to conduct proper factual review on the issue of whether petitioner was eligible for cancellation of removal.
Court Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. It was not clear from the record why the BIA upheld the IJ's finding that petitioner had not suffered past persecution, and the matter must be remanded to the BIA for clarification; remand is also necessary because if the BIA is upholding the IJ's apparent adoption of a blanket rule that past persecution of family members can never be the basis for a past persecution claim, this is an incorrect statement of the law of the circuit; alternatively, if the BIA based its finding that petitioner's claims of past persecution based on past harm to his family were not on account of a protected ground, the BIA engaged in improper factfinding; the BIA also engaged in an independent factual analysis regarding the issue of whether petitioner was eligible for cancellation of removal and the issue is remanded for further review under the proper scope of review.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.