Antonio Guerra-Gonzalez v. Jefferson Sessions
707 F. App'x 860
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Antonio Guerra‑Gonzalez, a Mexican national, appealed the BIA’s dismissal of his challenge to an IJ order that denied his motion to suppress, found him removable, and denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- The case reached the Ninth Circuit under 8 U.S.C. § 1252; the court reviewed the suppression ruling de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.
- The agency admitted Form I‑213 into evidence; Guerra‑Gonzalez argued admission was improper and that the form should not establish his alienage.
- The government relied on the record (including Form I‑213) to prove alienage by clear and convincing evidence; the BIA sustained the IJ on that issue.
- Guerra‑Gonzalez claimed future harm in Mexico on account of a protected ground (including political opinion) and argued a well‑founded fear and likelihood of torture; the BIA rejected nexus to a protected ground and denied CAT relief.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition: it held admission of the I‑213 was permissible, found substantial evidence supported alienage and lack of nexus, and rejected other procedural and legal challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Form I‑213 | I‑213 was improperly admitted and prejudicial | I‑213 was probative and admission was fundamentally fair | Admission proper; no abuse of discretion |
| Proof of alienage | Government failed to meet clear and convincing standard | Government met burden via record evidence and reasonable inferences | Substantial evidence supports alienage finding |
| Nexus for asylum/withholding (persecution) | Fear of harm from criminals/gang members and political opinion establishes nexus | Harassment/criminal violence lacks nexus to protected grounds; political‑opinion claim insufficient | Substantial evidence supports BIA’s finding of no nexus; relief denied |
| CAT claim (torture risk) | More likely than not to be tortured on return | Record does not compel finding of government acquiescence/consent to torture | Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Rojas‑Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2003) (admission of evidence must be probative and fundamentally fair)
- Martinez‑Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantial‑evidence review and CAT standard discussion)
- United States v. Bucher, 375 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2004) (factfinder may draw reasonable inferences)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (criminal harassment or random gang violence lacks nexus to protected ground)
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (review requires evidence to compel reversal of BIA credibility/nexus findings)
- Flores‑Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2015) (remand standards addressed; relied upon by petitioner but rejected here)