Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mirian Anabel Robles-Zuniga, a native and citizen of Honduras, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal.
The BIA ruled that her proposed particular social group of Honduran women lacked particularity. It also found that her proposed groups of abandoned women in Honduras, single and unprotected women in Honduras, and single and unprotected mothers with children in Honduras lacked particularity and social distinction. On the CAT claim, the agency found that her evidence did not show that the Honduran government would acquiesce in her torture.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied Robles-Zuniga’s petition for review. The court held that binding Fifth Circuit precedent supported the BIA’s rejection of her proposed particular social groups. Because the absence of a cognizable group defeated her asylum and withholding claims, the court did not address whether she established the required nexus between her alleged harm and those groups.
The court declined to decide whether the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi changed the standard of review governing particular-social-group cognizability, reasoning that the BIA’s ruling could be upheld under either de novo or substantial-evidence review.
Substantial evidence also supported the denial of CAT protection because Robles-Zuniga failed to establish governmental acquiescence. When she reported an attempted attack by her son’s great-uncle, Honduran police detained him for 24 hours. The government’s failure to obtain a conviction did not establish the state action required for CAT relief, and speculation that police might fail to prevent private violence was insufficient.
Key Takeaways
- The proposed groups failed because they lacked the particularity, or both the particularity and social distinction, required under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The failure to identify a cognizable particular social group was independently dispositive of the asylum and withholding claims.
- A failure to prosecute or prevent private violence does not by itself establish governmental acquiescence for CAT purposes, particularly where police responded to the reported threat.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s existing restrictions on particular social groups defined broadly by gender, relationship status, vulnerability, or parental status. Applicants must show that a proposed group satisfies the circuit’s particularity and social-distinction requirements before questions such as nexus can affect the outcome.
The opinion also leaves unresolved whether Urias-Orellana altered the Fifth Circuit’s standard of review for social-group cognizability. On CAT claims, it underscores that evidence of ineffective prosecution is not necessarily enough to prove that government officials would consent to or acquiesce in torture.