Rene Rodriguez-Mancias v. Jefferson B. Sessions III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying petition for review [1000032700-2] Originating case number: A206-026-282. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [17-1264]

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 1 of 11

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1264

RENE ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ-MANCIAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Argued: March 20, 2018

Decided: May 14, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and Leonie M. Brinkema, United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Petition denied by unpublished opinion. Judge Brinkema wrote the opinion, in which
Judge Niemeyer and Judge King joined.

ARGUED: Christina Augusta Wilkes, WILKES LEGAL, LLC, Takoma Park, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Timothy G. Hayes, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Rachel C. Zoghlin, GROSSMAN
LAW, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 2 of 11

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 3 of 11

BRINKEMA, District Judge:
Petitioner Rene Rodriguez-Mancias (“Rodriguez-Mancias”), a citizen of El
Salvador, challenges an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. To be eligible for either form of
relief, Rodriguez-Mancias had to be able to demonstrate that he is unwilling to return to
his native country because he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
protected ground, which he claimed was his membership in the particular social group of
the nuclear family of his ex-girlfriend’s daughter. Because we conclude that there is
substantial evidence in the record supporting the BIA’s conclusion that RodriguezMancias is not actually a member of this social group, his petition for review will be
denied.
I
Rodriguez-Mancias had a romantic relationship with a woman named Roxana in
El Salvador. In January 2012, Roxana gave birth to a daughter, Madeleine, and in the
months before and after Madeleine’s birth, Rodriguez-Mancias believed that she was his
child and acted as her father. His name was listed on her birth certificate; he provided her
with diapers, milk, and food; and he saw her almost daily, although he never lived with
Roxana or Madeleine. In March 2013, about a year after Madeleine was born, RodriguezMancias decided to undergo a DNA paternity test because he “live[d] in a very small
community and there were rumors going around that she wasn’t [his] daughter,” as well
as because Roxana was “always evasive” about Madeleine’s paternity. AR 120, 477-482.
The DNA test revealed that Rodriguez-Mancias is not Madeleine’s biological father;
3

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 4 of 11

however, even after learning that he was not Madeleine’s father, he continued to provide
for her and see her almost every day.
On May 17, 2013, approximately two months after the DNA test, RodriguezMancias was playing soccer with his friends when an MS-13 gang member, Eduardo,
along with three other MS-13 members, approached him. 1 Eduardo, who was carrying a
knife, displayed his tattoos, including both gang tattoos and the names of Roxana and
Madeleine, to Rodriguez-Mancias; told him that he was Madeleine’s biological father;
and warned him that he would kill him if he did not stay away from Roxana and
Madeleine. After being threatened, Rodriguez-Mancias returned home and told his
grandmother, with whom he lived, what had happened. She contacted family members,
who reached out to a cousin, believed to be a member of MS-13. This cousin relayed to
Rodriguez-Mancias’s brother that Eduardo was seeking permission from MS-13
authorities to kill Rodriguez-Mancias and advised him to leave El Salvador as soon as
possible.
Two weeks after the encounter with Eduardo, Rodriguez-Mancias fled El Salvador
and made his way to the United States, which he entered in early June 2013. Since
leaving El Salvador, he has had no further contact with Eduardo, Roxana, or Madeleine,

1

Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, is a violent gang that has an active presence in El
Salvador, among other places. See Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53, 56-57 (4th Cir. 2015).

4

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 5 of 11

although he has periodically sent money to Roxana’s mother, who now cares for
Madeleine. 2
After arriving in the United States, Rodriguez-Mancias was arrested by
immigration authorities to whom he expressed a fear of returning to El Salvador. He
passed an initial credible fear interview with an asylum officer, was issued a Notice to
Appear, and was placed in removal proceedings. Through counsel, Rodriguez-Mancias
conceded his removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture, arguing that he had suffered past persecution and
would likely suffer future persecution in El Salvador because of his inclusion in the social
group he defined as Madeleine’s immediate family. On October 15, 2015, an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) held a hearing, at which Rodriguez-Mancias and his brother
testified in support of his applications for immigration relief. He also submitted a variety
of sworn statements from individuals in El Salvador to support his testimony, as well as
an expert report describing MS-13 violence and other evidence describing conditions in
El Salvador.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ issued an oral decision denying RodriguezMancias’s applications for relief. As the IJ recognized, to “be eligible for asylum,
[Rodriguez-Mancias] must credibly demonstrate that he’s a refugee,” which means that
he is “an alien unable or unwilling to return to his country because of a well-founded fear

2

Roxana appears to have left Madeleine in her mother’s care and begun
cohabitating with Eduardo.

5

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 6 of 11

of future persecution, or that [he] has suffered past persecution[,] on account of [his] race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” AR
51. He also observed that Rodriguez-Mancias must demonstrate that one of these five
“protected grounds” would “be at least one central reason for the persecutor’s actions
against him” and that a “social group” is a group that is “composed of members who
share a common or immutable characteristic,” “defined with particularity,” and “socially
distinct [from] the society in question.” AR 52.
Although Rodriguez-Mancias’s testimony was found to be credible, the IJ
determined that Rodriguez-Mancias had not suffered past persecution because no
physical harm had occurred, the threat was made as a prospective threat, the conditions
giving rise to the threat had appeared to have abated because Madeleine had been
abandoned by Roxana, and Rodriguez-Mancias had not attempted to contact the police to
report the threat. The IJ also determined that Rodriguez-Mancias was not threatened due
to his membership in the claimed social group of Madeleine’s nuclear family because he
was not a member of that social group. The IJ based that finding on the evidence
demonstrating that Rodriguez-Mancias had never lived with Roxana or Madeleine, was
not the biological father of the child, and had not had any contact with Roxana since his
move to the United States. He also considered evidence that there were rumors
circulating in the community that Rodriguez-Mancias was not the child’s father and that
“the community didn’t view [Roxana, Madeleine, and Rodriguez-Mancias] as the
family.” AR 59-60. Accordingly, the IJ denied Rodriguez-Mancias’s application for

6

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 7 of 11

asylum, as well as his applications for withholding of removal 3 and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. 4
Rodriguez-Mancias appealed this decision to the BIA, which affirmed, agreeing
with the IJ that Rodriguez-Mancias’s evidence was insufficient to establish that his
membership in any particular social group supported his fear of returning to El Salvador
because the threat against Rodriguez-Mancias was made in the context of a personal
dispute. The BIA also agreed with the IJ’s determination that Rodriguez-Mancias had not
established that he suffered past persecution because he “did not indicate he was ever
physically harmed in El Salvador” and because “the threat he received from a gang
member was not shown to constitute persecution.” AR 3 n.1. Lastly, the BIA determined
that Rodriguez-Mancias was not eligible for asylum based on being a member of
Madeleine’s family, because the threat “does not establish that [Eduardo] was motivated
to harm members of the proposed group on account of their relationship to one another.”
AR 4. The BIA relied on Rodriguez-Mancias’s testimony that he is not Madeleine’s
biological father, that the child did not reside with any of his family members, and that he

3

Because the withholding of removal standard is more rigorous than the asylum
standard, the IJ concluded that if Rodriguez-Mancias were ineligible for asylum, he
would also be ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is
higher than for asylum—even though the facts that must be proved are the same—an
applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal
. . . .”).
4

Rodriguez-Mancias has not appealed the determination that he is ineligible for
relief under the Convention Against Torture.

7

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 8 of 11

“has had no further direct contact with anyone in the child’s actual family” 5 to find that
Rodriguez-Mancias was not a member of Madeleine’s nuclear family. AR 4. As such, the
BIA affirmed the IJ’s determinations that Rodriguez-Mancias is not eligible for either
asylum or withholding of removal.
In his petition for review of the BIA’s decision, Rodriguez-Mancias argues that
the BIA erroneously denied his application for asylum because he has suffered past
persecution and does hold a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his
membership in the social group of Madeleine’s nuclear family. He also argues that the
BIA failed to address whether the government of El Salvador would be willing to protect
him and that the BIA applied the wrong causation standard when analyzing his
application for withholding of removal.
II
We review the factual findings of the BIA for substantial evidence, which means
that the agency’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal conclusions are
reviewed de novo. Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir. 2011). We
may not vacate a denial of asylum unless it is “manifestly contrary to law.” Id. (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C)). Where, as here, the BIA issues an opinion adopting and

5

This appears to be a misreading of the record, as Rodriguez-Mancias credibly
testified that he has maintained some contact with Madeleine’s maternal grandmother,
although he has had no contact with Madeleine.

8

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 9 of 11

supplementing the IJ’s reasoning, the Court reviews both decisions. Barahona v. Holder,
691 F.3d 349, 353 (4th Cir. 2012).
To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that he is “unable or
unwilling to return to” his native country because of “persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To establish eligibility for
withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate that his “life or freedom would be
threatened” in his home country “because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id. § 1231(b)(3). Both the IJ and the
BIA found that Rodriguez-Mancias had not met his burden of establishing persecution or
a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground because he was not
actually a member of Madeleine’s nuclear family.
Rodriguez-Mancias argues that the “IJ and BIA erred as a matter of law by finding
that [p]etitioner is not a member of the particular social group of nuclear family members
of [Madeleine] simply because [p]etitioner is not Madeleine’s biological father.” Pet. Br.
19. According to Rodriguez-Mancias, non-biologically-related individuals may still be
considered as part of a family because “[l]aw, policy, and social norms define family far
more broadly than just blood relationships or civil contracts.” Id. at 20.
Although Rodriguez-Mancias’s argument is correct that family membership
depends not only on genetics but also “on the nature and degree of the relationships
involved and how those relationships are regarded by the society in question,” In re L-EA, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 43 (BIA 2017); see also Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 125 (4th
9

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 10 of 11

Cir. 2017) (finding a nuclear family where two individuals “were never married” but
“were considered a married couple by members of their community”), he wholly
mischaracterizes the basis for the determination that he is not part of Madeleine’s nuclear
family. The IJ and BIA did not determine as matter of law that the lack of biological
connection to Madeleine precluded his being included in her family. Instead, the
evaluation of the biological evidence was only one factor in the analysis, which also
included the uncontested facts that Rodriguez-Mancias never lived with Roxana or
Madeleine, had been separated from Roxana for a period of six months even while he
was living in El Salvador, had not had any contact with Roxana since leaving El
Salvador, and had not had any direct contact with Madeleine herself, although he has had
contact with her maternal grandmother. The IJ and the BIA also recognized that there
were rumors in the community that Rodriguez-Mancias was not Madeleine’s father,
which indicated that the community did not view him as part of Madeleine’s family. In
addition, although not specifically referenced by the IJ or the BIA, the record below
included evidence that Rodriguez-Mancias was unable to recount how much money he
had sent back to El Salvador to provide for Madeleine or how often he sent payments. All
of this evidence weighs against his claim of continued inclusion in Madeleine’s nuclear
family.
To counter this evidence, Rodriguez-Mancias points to a variety of pieces of
evidence suggesting that he was—and is—a member of Madeleine’s nuclear family,
including that he is listed as her father on her birth certificate, that he acted as
Madeleine’s parent for the first year of her life, that he had provided for her to some
10

Appeal: 17-1264

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/14/2018

Pg: 11 of 11

degree even before she was born, and that he has continued to communicate with her
maternal grandmother and financially support Madeleine by sending money back to El
Salvador. Pet. Br. 21-22. He also points to evidence that various specific members of
Madeleine’s community view Rodriguez-Mancias as Madeleine’s father. Id. at 22.
Although there is some evidence supporting Rodriguez-Mancias’s argument, there
is significant evidence supporting the IJ’s conclusion that Rodriguez-Mancias is not a
member of Madeleine’s immediate family. Given this conflicting evidence, no reasonable
factfinder would be compelled to find that Rodriguez-Mancias was—or is—a member of
Madeleine’s nuclear family. As such, the factual findings of the IJ and the BIA that
Rodriguez-Mancias is not a member of Madeleine’s nuclear family will be affirmed.
Because persecution on account of membership in a particular social group is a necessary
element of Rodriguez-Mancias’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the
conclusion that he is not a member of the claimed social group is dispositive with respect
to both of these applications. 6
For the foregoing reasons, petition number 17-1264 is
DENIED.

6

Given this conclusion, we decline to address Rodriguez-Mancias’s other
arguments.

11