Summary
The First Circuit denied Alejandra Milagros De La Cruz-Quispe's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the abuse arose from a personal relationship and lacked the required nexus to a protected ground, and that her fear of future torture was speculative. The court also rejected her challenges concerning the mixed-motive standard, standards of review, and due process.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that De La Cruz-Quispe failed to establish the required nexus between the harm inflicted by her former partner and membership in a statutorily protected ground for asylum.
- Whether the failure to establish the asylum nexus also required denial of withholding of removal.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture because the asserted fear of future torture was speculative and did not establish that torture was more likely than not.
- Whether the BIA applied the proper standards of review and whether the agency committed due process or other legal errors.
Holdings
- The petitioner's evidence did not compel a finding that membership in any proposed particular social group was at least one central reason for the abuse; substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that the abuse arose from intensely personal disputes.
- Because De La Cruz-Quispe failed to satisfy the lower asylum nexus requirement, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding of removal.
- Substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT protection because the petitioner failed to establish that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, a government official if removed to Peru.
- The BIA properly applied clear-error review to the IJ's factual findings concerning motive and de novo review to legal issues; the petitioner's contrary challenge failed.
Key quotations
“We deny the petition because substantial evidence supports the agency's determinations and there were no errors of law.” (at 6)
“To meet th[e] "nexus" requirement,' the petitioner must have provided 'sufficient evidence of an actual connection between the harm [s]he suffered and h[er] protected trait.'” (at 8)
“To obtain CAT protection, De La Cruz had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that, if removed to Peru, "[s]he would be subject to torture by or with the acquiescence of a government official."” (at 11)
Factual background
De La Cruz-Quispe, a native and citizen of Peru, described years of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by her former partner, Mauro, including beatings, forced sex, threats, and interference with her attempts to obtain police protection. She left Peru for the United States in 2013, leaving her daughter behind. She based her applications for asylum and related protection on twelve proposed particular social groups and submitted evidence concerning violence against women in Peru. The agency found that the abuse arose from intensely personal disputes within the relationship rather than from a protected ground, and that her fear of future torture was speculative.
Procedural history
De La Cruz-Quispe entered the United States without a valid entry document and was placed in removal proceedings after being charged as removable under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). The Immigration Judge found her credible and her asylum application timely but denied asylum for failure to establish a nexus between the harm and a protected ground, denied withholding of removal, denied CAT protection as speculative, and ordered removal to Peru. The BIA dismissed her appeal on April 3, 2025, and she timely petitioned the First Circuit for review.