Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, No. 11-2068 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThe government commenced removal proceedings against Defendant, who was born in Guatemala. Defendant submitted an application for asylum or withholding of removal, basing his asylum application on his membership in a particular social group, which he defined as "Guatemalans returning from the United States who are perceived as wealthy." The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that Defendant did not meet his burden of showing past persecution or a reasonable probability of future persecution, that he did not show the government of Guatemala was unable or unwilling to control alleged persecutors, and that there was little evidence that his social group would be perceived as a group by society or subject to a higher incident of crime than the population. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendant's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in finding that the group "Guatemalans returning from the United States who are perceived as wealthy" was not a particular social group within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Court Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. The IJ's finding that petitioner had not suffered past persecution was supported by substantial evidence; the BIA's finding that Guatemalans returning from the U.S. who are perceived as wealthy did not constitute a particular and socially visible group such that they could be perceived as a group and targeted for persecution was supported by substantial evidence; the agency did not err in finding that petitioner did not show a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to Guatemala on account of his membership in a particular social group; withholding of removal was properly denied as petitioner did not meet the less rigorous test for asylum; CAT claim was raised for the first time on appeal and would not be considered on appeal.
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.