Bernardo Guzman-Aranda v. Jefferson Sessions, 705 F. App'x 653

Petitioner Bernardo Guzman-Aranda is subject to an order of removal affirmed by the BIA and petitions for review in the Ninth Circuit.
Guzman-Aranda challenged the admission of statements attributed to him (an I-213 and a Record of Sworn Statement) and argued they were inadmissible because Miranda warnings and related protections were not afforded.
He also sought relief via asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting a fear of persecution/torture if returned to Mexico based on his alleged membership in a social group of deportees perceived as wealthy Americans.
The IJ admitted the I-213 after finding the Record of Sworn Statement reliable and rejected Guzman-Aranda’s declaration that he did not recall making the I-213 statements.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s removal order, concluding the proposed social group was not cognizable and that Guzman-Aranda failed to show eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miranda warnings are required for admissibility in immigration proceedings	Guzman-Aranda argued his statements were inadmissible without Miranda-like warnings	Government argued Miranda warnings not required in immigration removals	Miranda warnings not required; statements admissible in immigration proceedings
Admissibility of the I-213 (and weight of petitioner’s sworn denial)	I-213 unreliable because petitioner swore he did not recall making the statements	Government relied on Record of Sworn Statement undermining petitioner’s denial	I-213 properly admitted; Record of Sworn Statement rebutted petitioner’s declaration
Cognizability of petitioner’s proposed particular social group and entitlement to asylum/withholding	Guzman-Aranda claimed deportees perceived as wealthy Americans form a particular social group and fear of future persecution	Government (and BIA) argued the group is not cognizable and record does not show well-founded fear	Court noted group not defended as cognizable and record does not compel relief; no asylum or withholding entitlement
Eligibility for CAT protection (likelihood of torture)	Petitioner alleged more-likely-than-not risk of torture if returned to Mexico	Government argued petitioner failed to meet CAT standard	Record does not compel finding petitioner more likely than not to be tortured; CAT relief denied

Trias-Hernandez v. I.N.S., 528 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1975) (Miranda warnings not required in immigration proceedings)
Chavez v. Martin, 538 U.S. 760 (U.S. 2003) (criminal prosecution possibility does not change admissibility rule)
Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussion of procedural claims under immigration regs)
Espinoza v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 308 (9th Cir. 1995) (I-213 is presumptively admissible hearsay absent sufficient negative factors)
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (similar proposed social group found noncognizable)
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (similar social-group analysis)
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for assessing well-founded fear)
Navas v. I.N.S., 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000) (asylum/well-founded fear standards)
Arriaga-Barrientos v. I.N.S., 937 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1991) (asylum evidentiary standards)
Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard whether evidence compels a grant of asylum/withholding)
Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (CAT more-likely-than-not standard)

PETITION DENIED.