Rosales-Reyes v. Garland, No. 20-2417 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order denying petitioner and her two minor children's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner testified that she had suffered persecution, or alternatively torture, at a drug cartel's behest because of her membership in a particular social group defined as "Mexican mothers who refuse to work for the Cartel."
The court concluded that the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's asylum application because petitioner's social group is not sufficiently particularized or socially distinct. Insofar as petitioner relies on her uncle's death as evidence of persecution, the court has previously explained that evidence of isolated violence is insufficient. Because petitioner was unable to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that she is also unable to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of CAT relief based on the fact that petitioner can safely relocate, joining her parents in a Mexican state free from the cartel's control.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The agency did not err in finding that petitioner's proposed social group - Mexican mothers who refuse to work for the Cartel - was not sufficiently particularized or social distinct; violence against a family member cannot establish persecution sufficient for asylum because a pattern of persecution tied to the petitioner is required; denial of asylum is affirmed, and it follows that denial of withholding of removal is also affirmed; with respect to CAT relief, petitioner could safely relocate by joining her parents in a Mexican state free from the Cartel's control and, therefore, she was not entitled to CAT relief.
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.