Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angel Yeferson Reyes-Medina, a native and citizen of Honduras, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture following his removal proceedings. Proceeding pro se, Reyes-Medina applied to the Immigration Judge (IJ) for relief, which the IJ denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision.
Reyes-Medina then petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review, challenging the BIA’s determinations on three grounds: (1) the BIA erred in finding he failed to establish the requisite nexus between his persecution and a protected ground; (2) the BIA erred in denying CAT protection for failure to show government acquiescence; and (3) his due process rights were violated when the IJ denied his request for a continuance to obtain counsel and failed to conduct a competency inquiry.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the BIA’s decision in its entirety. Reviewing the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo, the court held that Reyes-Medina failed to satisfy the high bar required for reversal—that the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion.
On the asylum and withholding claims, the court found substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Reyes-Medina failed to establish the requisite nexus between harms suffered and a protected ground. To qualify for asylum or withholding, an applicant must show the protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for persecution. Persecution motivated by personal vendetta or desire for revenge is not persecution on account of a protected ground, and Reyes-Medina did not establish otherwise.
On the CAT claim, the court found Reyes-Medina did not show the evidence compels a contrary conclusion to the BIA’s finding that he failed to establish government acquiescence. The court noted that generalized country evidence about torture risk tells little about the likelihood state actors will torture any particular person. Regarding the due process claims, the court applied de novo review and held Reyes-Medina failed to show the requisite prejudice from the IJ’s denial of a continuance or failure to conduct a competency inquiry sua sponte.
Key Takeaways
- Asylum and withholding applicants must demonstrate a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for persecution—personal disputes unrelated to protected characteristics do not qualify.
- Generalized country conditions evidence about torture is insufficient to establish CAT protection; applicants must demonstrate government acquiescence in the particular circumstances of their case.
- Due process claims in immigration proceedings require an initial showing of substantial prejudice; the denial of a continuance or absence of a sua sponte competency inquiry does not automatically constitute error.
- The “compels a contrary conclusion” standard of review is highly deferential and places a substantial burden on petitioners seeking reversal of BIA decisions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s stringent approach to nexus requirements in asylum cases. Many applicants attribute harms to criminal activity, personal disputes, or gang violence rather than persecution on account of protected grounds. The court’s emphasis that such claims—even when supported by evidence of actual persecution—do not qualify for relief clarifies a critical threshold issue that frequently defeats immigration claims. For applicants proceeding pro se, the decision confirms they face the same substantive burdens as represented parties and must meet the same evidentiary standards.
The holding on CAT protection is also significant: it establishes that while country conditions evidence may show torture occurs, individual applicants must affirmatively demonstrate government acquiescence in their specific cases. This standard prevents reliance on general asylum-grant statistics or broad accounts of human rights abuses as a substitute for particularized proof of likely torture, maintaining a meaningful distinction between asylum and CAT relief.