Martinez-Galarza v. Holder, No. 14-1436 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseGalarza entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1986. In 1999 he was granted voluntary departure. Galarza re-entered, unlawfully, in 2000. In 2010, he was arrested and removal proceedings were commenced. Galarza asserts that ICE agents promised to help him stay in the U.S. in exchange for information on Sanchez, Galarza's nephew. Galarza asserts he provided that information, which resulted in Sanchez’s arrest and removal. Galarza sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that he was a member of social groups "consisting of people who have provided information to [ICE] to enable that organization to remove individuals residing illegally in the [United States]," and "witnesses for ICE." Galarza claimed that Sanchez had beaten his brother and killed his nephew and had threatened to kill him. He argued that the removal of Sanchez was a changed or extraordinary circumstance that excused his untimely filing. The IJ found the asylum application time-barred, that Galarza's claimed social groups lacked social visibility and particularity, that Galarza failed to establish the standard of asylum, and that he had not established that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Mexican government or its agents upon his return. The BIA and Eighth Circuit rejected petitions for review.
Court Description: Petition for Review - Immigration - Bloomington, MN Immigration Proceeding. Petitioner did not establish eligibility for asylum as he failed to show that his fear of persecution was on account of his membership in a particular social group; petitioner's fear of harm was, in fact, based on his fear of retribution from a person who had a personal grudge against him; petitioner had waived his claims for withholding of removability, CAT protection and voluntary departure, and the court would not consider them.
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.