Alvaro Vazquez-Ramirez v. U.S. Attorney General, 707 F. App'x 626

Vazquez-Ramirez, a Mexican citizen, was subject to an expedited removal order dated January 12, 2011 after entering the U.S. without valid entry documentation; DHS removed him and he reentered several times.
In April 2015 DHS reinstated the January 2011 expedited removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); at that time he expressed fear of return and underwent a reasonable-fear interview, which an asylum officer denied.
At an IJ hearing Vazquez-Ramirez testified he had been beaten and threatened by drug traffickers in Mexico after intervening to defend his cousin and that he and his brother filed a police report; police reportedly arrested relatives of assailants.
The IJ affirmed the asylum officer, finding (1) the attackers were motivated by his reporting to police (not a protected ground), (2) relocation within Mexico was possible, and (3) police did not acquiesce in persecution.
Vazquez-Ramirez petitioned for review arguing: (a) the January 2011 expedited removal violated due process and may be collaterally attacked; (b) he should be allowed to apply for asylum despite the reinstatement; and (c) the IJ erred in denying reasonable fear for withholding and CAT relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to collateral-attack the Jan. 12, 2011 expedited removal	Vazquez-Ramirez: may collaterally attack the 2011 order on due process grounds	Government: courts lack jurisdiction to review collateral attacks on expedited removal orders	Dismissed — court lacks jurisdiction to review the 2011 expedited removal order
Ability to apply for asylum after reinstatement	Vazquez-Ramirez: he should be permitted to apply for asylum despite reinstatement	Government: 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) bars applications for relief under the immigration chapter, including asylum	Dismissed — precedent bars asylum applications after reinstatement
Reasonable-fear finding for withholding of removal (future or past persecution)	Vazquez-Ramirez: was persecuted and faces future persecution as a tattooed family member who defended his cousin; relocation is not feasible	Government: attackers were motivated by reporting to police (criminal vendetta), relocation is possible	Denied — IJ’s findings supported by substantial evidence: no nexus to a protected ground and relocation feasible
CAT (Convention Against Torture) — government acquiescence	Vazquez-Ramirez: Mexican authorities would turn a blind eye to torture	Government: police investigated and made arrests after his report	Denied — record supports IJ’s finding of lack of government acquiescence

Avila v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 560 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.) (review of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo regarding expedited removal)
Shunaula v. Holder, 732 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.) (courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on expedited removal)
Jimenez-Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 821 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (reinstatement bars relief under the immigration chapter, including asylum)
Antipova v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for reviewing IJ factfindings)
Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir.) (elements for withholding of removal and definition of particular social group)
Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (private criminal violence does not necessarily equal persecution on a protected ground)
Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir.) (relocation within country can defeat future-persecution claim)
Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir.) (CAT requires likelihood of torture with government acquiescence)
Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 645 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir.) (prior-panel precedent rule)