Blanca Bernal-Roman v. Jefferson Sessions
694 F. App'x 264
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Blanca Bernal-Roman, a Mexican national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal (WOR), and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, listing her minor daughter as a derivative beneficiary.
- Bernal-Roman alleged an attempted kidnapping (no physical injury) and threatening calls from persons identifying as the Zetas, asserting these acts were due to membership in a particular social group: family members of wealthy landowners and ranchers targeted for extortion.
- The immigration judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal; Bernal-Roman petitioned this court pro se.
- The court declined to consider several new or contradictory assertions raised on appeal that were not presented to the agency (e.g., murders of relatives, an alternate social group, specific gang threats).
- The Fifth Circuit found the record did not compel reversal: Bernal-Roman failed to establish a cognizable particular social group based on wealth/extortion, and she did not meet the standards for WOR or CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of particular social group for asylum | Group = family members of wealthy landowners/ranchers targeted by extortion; this is a protected social group | Proposed group lacks particularity and social visibility; extortion-based economic targeting not recognized | Group not cognizable; asylum denied |
| Asylum — nexus and persecution | Attempted kidnapping and death threats show persecution on account of membership in proposed group | Evidence insufficient to show persecution or nexus to protected ground | Record does not compel finding of persecution or nexus; asylum denied |
| Withholding of removal | Same facts warrant WOR because risk is "more likely than not" | Risk not shown to meet higher WOR standard | WOR denied; record does not compel contrary conclusion |
| CAT relief and likelihood of torture | Calls and attempted kidnapping show probability of torture with government acquiescence | Evidence shows relatives remained in Mexico unharmed; no showing of government acquiescence | CAT relief denied; not more likely than not to be tortured |
| Procedural due process / IJ bias | IJ repeatedly interrupted and prevented clarification, showing bias | No extrajudicial source or antagonism; judge sought clarity; no specific improper instances cited | No due process violation established |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885 (5th Cir. 2014) (rejecting economic extortion/wealth as basis for a protected social group)
- Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2012) (deeming wealthy individuals not a protected social group)
- Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing certain extortion-targeted groups where social visibility/particularity shown)
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (requirements for social visibility and particularity)
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard for withholding of removal review)
- Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015) (government acquiescence and family remaining unharmed relevant to CAT analysis)
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (due process and judicial bias standards in immigration proceedings)
- Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 2014) (challenge-limiting rule for issues not raised before the agency)
- Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2009) (refusal to consider new issues on petition for review)