Introduction

The case of Isaac De Jesus Carranza-Cortez versus the Attorney General of the United States of America presents a significant examination of the criteria required to establish membership in a Particular Social Group (PSG) under U.S. immigration law. This case was adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, on January 22, 2025. Carranza-Cortez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after fleeing his home country due to threats and extortion by gang members. The key issues revolved around whether Carranza-Cortez could convincingly demonstrate that he was a member of a PSG as defined by U.S. immigration statutes and whether the Salvadoran government would likely acquiesce to his potential torture upon return.

Summary of the Judgment

The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially denied Carranza-Cortez's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, leading Carranza-Cortez to petition for review. The Third Circuit, in an opinion authored by Circuit Judge Schwartz, upheld the BIA's decision, denying Carranza-Cortez's petition. The court held that Carranza-Cortez failed to establish membership in a cognizable PSG, specifically "El Salvadoran witnesses to gang crimes." Additionally, the court concluded that Carranza-Cortez did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Salvadoran government would acquiesce to his potential torture, thereby justifying the denial of CAT relief. A dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge McKee highlighted the challenges and paradoxes inherent in requiring asylum seekers to publicly testify or otherwise actively assist law enforcement to establish PSG membership.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior case law to establish the boundaries for defining a PSG. Key precedents include:

• S.E.R.L. v. Attorney General, 894 F.3d 535 (3d Cir. 2018): Defines the requirements for a PSG, emphasizing particularity and social distinctness.
• Garcia v. Attorney General, 665 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2011): Recognizes that public testimony or assistance to law enforcement can qualify as PSG membership.
• Radiowala v. Attorney General, 930 F.3d 577 (3d Cir. 2019): Clarifies that mere cooperation without public testimony does not suffice for PSG membership.
• Guzman Orellana v. Attorney General, 956 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2020): Affirms that public assistance to law enforcement requires definable group boundaries.
• Myrie v. Attorney General, 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017): Establishes the framework for evaluating CAT claims, focusing on governmental acquiescence.

These precedents collectively reinforce the necessity for PSGs to be defined with particularity and recognized as socially distinct groups within their societies. They also underscore the stringent requirements for demonstrating governmental acquiescence in CAT claims.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centers on two main pillars: the definition and recognition of the PSG, and the evaluation of CAT claims.

1. Determining Membership in a Particular Social Group

The court examined whether "El Salvadoran witnesses to gang crimes" meets the criteria of a PSG by assessing particularity and social distinctness. Carranza-Cortez argued that his experience as a witness to gang crimes categorizes him within this group. However, the court concluded that merely filing a police report does not suffice for PSG membership. The lack of public testimony or active assistance in prosecuting his persecutors meant that the group lacked definable boundaries and was not socially distinct. The requirements, as outlined in prior cases, necessitate that PSG members are recognized by society for their specific characteristics and that these characteristics set them apart from others.

2. Evaluating CAT Claims

For CAT relief, Carranza-Cortez needed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to El Salvador. The court analyzed whether the Salvadoran government would acquiesce to such torture. While acknowledging systemic issues like police corruption, the court found insufficient evidence that the government would actively and willingly allow torture of Carranza-Cortez. The majority opinion relied on the fact that the police initially reported an intent to assist, despite broader issues of corruption, thereby undermining the claim of governmental acquiescence.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future asylum and CAT claims within the Third Circuit and potentially beyond. It reinforces the stringent interpretation of PSG criteria, emphasizing that mere victimization without public action does not qualify as PSG membership. Moreover, the ruling tightens the standards for CAT relief by requiring clear evidence of governmental acquiescence to torture, rather than reliance on general corruption or police inefficiency.

Additionally, the dissent highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of PSGs in contexts where government corruption and impunity are rampant, suggesting a potential area for future legal development.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group (PSG)

A Particular Social Group is a category used in asylum law to classify individuals who share a common immutable characteristic and are persecuted for that characteristic. To qualify, the group must be clearly defined and recognizable within the society in question.

Particularity and Social Distinctness

Particularity refers to how narrowly or specifically a PSG is defined. The group must have clear boundaries that define who is and isn't included. Social Distinctness means that the group is recognized and perceived as separate by the society. For a PSG to qualify, it must meet both criteria.

Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief

CAT relief prevents individuals from being returned to countries where they are likely to be tortured. To qualify, applicants must show that it is more likely than not that they would face torture if returned, considering both past persecution and the current conditions in their home country.

De Novo Review

This is a standard of review where the appellate court considers the matter anew, giving no deference to the lower court's interpretation of the law.

Conclusion

The judgment in Carranza-Cortez v. Attorney General United States of America reinforces the rigorous standards applied to establishing membership in a Particular Social Group for asylum purposes, emphasizing the necessity of both particularity and social distinctness. By denying Carranza-Cortez's claims, the court underscores the importance of demonstrating clear, public involvement in prosecuting persecutors to qualify as a PSG member. Additionally, the denial of CAT relief highlights the stringent requirements for proving governmental acquiescence to torture. The dissenting opinion raises critical concerns about the practicality and fairness of these requirements in contexts plagued by systemic corruption and impunity. This case serves as a pivotal reference point for future immigration cases, delineating the boundaries of acceptable evidence and the interpretations of key legal standards within the Third Circuit.