Menjivar v. Garland, No. 21-1624 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
When Menjivar was 10 years old, her family started attending an evangelical church in El Salvador. Menjivar became a youth leader. Menjivar, her sister, and other youth group members preached to young people. One of their missions was to help people leave gangs. Their pastor received a letter warning him to protect the youth group. Menjivar left El Salvador, fearing reprisals from the gang. When she was 17 years old, she entered the U.S., seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Menjivar compiled documentary evidence, including affidavits from her sister and pastor, and country condition reports. The IJ received her evidence late, took about 45 minutes to review it, and denied her application, finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution and failed to show that she was ever personally harmed or threatened. The BIA affirmed, finding no due process violation. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review. The IJ reviewed and considered the evidence; his decision discusses the very evidence Menjivar claims was overlooked. In addition, Menjivar failed to show prejudice. The affidavits from her sister and her pastor do not support a particularized fear of future harm to her but only mention general threats against church members.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner failed to prove that her fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable as her evidence did not support her claim of a particularized fear based on her religious activities; substantial evidence supports the agency's decision to deny asylum; as petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to obtain asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of proof required to obtain withholding of removal; no error in denying CAT relief as petitioner could not establish a likelihood of being tortured or government acquiescence; claim that petitioner was denied due process because the ALJ did not spend enough time reviewing her evidence rejected.
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.