Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jacob Emmanuel Flores-Mijango, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought protection from removal in the United States. Before an Immigration Judge, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ denied all three forms of relief and ordered him removed. He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal.
Before the Fifth Circuit, Flores-Mijango challenged the BIA’s findings on several grounds. He argued that his proposed particular social groups — individuals with a criminal history and deportees — qualified for protection, that his anti-gang political opinion gave him protected status, and that he risked being perceived as a gang affiliate upon return to El Salvador. He also contended that he faced a risk of torture with government acquiescence if repatriated, including through the prospect of imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review in a per curiam summary calendar opinion. On the asylum and withholding claims, the court held that Flores-Mijango had not demonstrated that the record compelled a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s findings. Specifically, he failed to show that his proposed social groups were cognizable rather than overbroad, that his anti-gang views constituted a protected political opinion, or that he would be regarded as a gang affiliate in El Salvador.
On the CAT claim, the court found that Flores-Mijango had not established either that he would be imprisoned upon return or that conditions of imprisonment in El Salvador rise to the level of torture for CAT purposes. His evidentiary challenge was also rejected, as the court characterized it as a disagreement with the agency’s factfinding rather than a legal error.
Key Takeaways
- Proposed particular social groups defined as “individuals with criminal history” or “deportees” remain vulnerable to rejection as overbroad under Fifth Circuit precedent.
- To succeed on a CAT claim premised on feared imprisonment, a petitioner must show both a likelihood of incarceration and that imprisonment conditions in the destination country constitute torture.
- Challenges framed as disputes over how an immigration agency weighed evidence will not succeed on petition for review — courts defer to agency factfinding unless the record compels a contrary result.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s demanding standard for asylum seekers from Central America who rely on criminal history or deportee status to define their particular social group, and who assert anti-gang sentiment as a political opinion. Courts in this circuit have consistently found these categories too broad to qualify for protection absent more particularized characteristics.
The CAT holding is also significant for practitioners: it clarifies that a petitioner alleging fear of torture through imprisonment must clear two distinct hurdles — establishing a likelihood of detention and showing that El Salvador’s prison conditions meet the legal threshold for torture. Together, these rulings signal continued difficulty for Salvadoran nationals seeking humanitarian relief on these grounds in the Fifth Circuit.