## Facts

- Mauricio Edgardo Valdiviezo-Galdamez, a Honduran national, entered the United States without inspection in October 2004.
- He alleged MS-13 repeatedly targeted him in Honduras for recruitment starting in 2003, robbing and beating him and threatening to kill him if he refused to join.
- He reported incidents to police multiple times but asserted authorities did not protect him.
- While traveling through Guatemala in September 2004, he was kidnapped by gang members, beaten for hours, and later freed by Guatemalan police.
- He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, primarily asserting persecution based on membership in a proposed “particular social group” of Honduran youth actively recruited by gangs who refused to join; he also advanced a political-opinion theory.

## Issues

1. Whether the agency’s added “particularity” and “social visibility” requirements for defining a “particular social group” were entitled to Chevron deference given earlier precedent using an immutability-focused approach.
2. Whether the agency properly rejected Valdiviezo-Galdamez’s proposed group as not cognizable under the INA.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported denial of CAT protection for failure to show likely torture with government consent or acquiescence.
4. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review standards the agency introduced on remand.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part.
- It vacated the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding and remanded for reconsideration under a consistent and adequately explained interpretation of “particular social group.”
- It held the agency’s “particularity” and “social visibility” requirements were inconsistent with earlier agency decisions and lacked a principled explanation; therefore, the interpretation did not merit Chevron deference.
- It declined to decide definitively whether the proposed gang-resistance group qualified as a cognizable social group, leaving that to the agency on remand.
- It upheld denial of CAT relief because substantial evidence supported the finding that the record did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured with government acquiescence.
- It agreed the political-opinion theory lacked evidence of nexus because the record did not show the gang targeted him due to any known political opinion.

## Legal Principles

- An agency interpretation receiving Chevron deference must be reasonable and accompanied by a reasoned explanation, particularly when departing from prior precedent.
- Unexplained, internally unclear, or inconsistently applied additions to a long-standing interpretive framework may be rejected as not entitled to Chevron deference.
- For asylum/withholding based on a “particular social group,” the agency must apply a coherent, consistently explained standard for defining the group and then assess nexus and persecution.
- CAT relief requires proof that torture is more likely than not and would occur with the consent or acquiescence of a public official; generalized violence and governmental efforts to combat the harm can support denial under substantial-evidence review.
- A political-opinion claim requires evidence that the persecutor targeted the applicant “on account of” that opinion, not merely for criminal aims such as recruitment or control.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the agency could not deny asylum and withholding by relying on newly added “social visibility” and “particularity” requirements for defining a “particular social group” without a principled explanation consistent with prior precedent, and it remanded for reconsideration; it nonetheless affirmed the denial of CAT protection for lack of proof of likely torture with government acquiescence.


Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011)