Alejandro Hernandez-Ramos v. Jefferson Sessions, 686 F. App'x 385

Hernandez-Ramos, a Mexican national, sought reopening of removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on threats and killings of his family and surveillance/questioning of relatives by Los Zetas.
He filed a timely motion to reopen on March 13, 2013; the BIA denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence that the harms were on account of a protected ground or that torture was likely with government acquiescence.
The Ninth Circuit reviews BIA denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion and requires a movant to show prima facie eligibility for relief (a reasonable likelihood statutory requirements are satisfied).
The BIA concluded Hernandez-Ramos failed to show his family-based social group was targeted for a protected ground and applied a “clear probability” standard for CAT relief.
The Ninth Circuit found the BIA applied incorrect legal standards: it demanded too much evidence at the prima facie stage for asylum/withholding and used the wrong CAT standard, and held Hernandez-Ramos met the prima facie showing.
Court granted the petition to reopen and remanded to the BIA to allow Hernandez-Ramos to pursue asylum, withholding, and CAT claims; the underlying removal-order petition was dismissed as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA abused discretion by denying motion to reopen for asylum/withholding based on family-member targeting	Hernandez-Ramos argued his kinship ties and recent family deaths, plus surveillance/questioning, show a reasonable likelihood he would be targeted on account of family membership (a particular social group)	BIA argued evidence did not establish deaths/attacks occurred on account of a protected ground and thus failed prima facie showing	Court: BIA applied an incorrect, too-demanding standard; Hernandez-Ramos made a prima facie showing of likelihood of targeting based on kinship ties; remand to reopen
Whether the BIA abused discretion by denying motion to reopen for CAT protection	Hernandez-Ramos argued evidence shows a reasonable likelihood he would be tortured or killed if returned (government acquiescence or collusion with cartel)	BIA required a “clear probability” of torture and found evidence insufficient under that standard	Court: BIA used wrong standard; movant need only show reasonable likelihood (more likely than not) of torture; Hernandez-Ramos met that standard; remand to reopen

Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for BIA abuse of discretion review)
Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion definition)
Ordonez v. I.N.S., 345 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2003) (prima facie standard for motions to reopen)
Thomas v. Gonzalez, 409 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2005) (kinship ties can form a particular social group)
Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2015) (family-as-PSG and targeting analysis)
Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for CAT/torture likelihood)
Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008) (killings can constitute torture)
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (CAT and withholding context guidance)