Padilla-Franco v. Garland, No. 20-2415 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review challenging the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. The court concluded that the BIA's decision to review the factual issue for clear error was correct.
The court also concluded that, even if the court assumed that petitioner suffered harm that amounted to past persecution, the court would still conclude that it was not motivated by her membership in a particular social group. In this case, the record shows that petitioner was targeted because the individual that threatened her father assumed that she owned the land that once belonged to her father—not because she was related to him. Finally, petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because she failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that she could not relocate in Honduras.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. On a petition for review of denial of asylum and withholding of removal, petitioner argues the Board of Immigration Appeals applied the clear error, rather than the de novo, standard of review. The BIA appropriately addressed for clear error the findings of fact and applied de novo review to the legal issues. The BIA further applied the correct factors in determining whether petitioner suffered past persecution or will face persecution if she returns to Honduras. The emotional harm petitioner faces do not rise to the level of significant actual suffering or harm and is otherwise not motivated by her membership in a particular social group, as she was targeted because she owned the land that once belonged to her father, not because she was related to him. Petitioner did not carry the burden that she could not relocate and thus did not show a well-founded fear of future persecution. [ June 01, 2021 ]
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.