Darlin Mejia v. Jefferson Sessions
692 F. App'x 407
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Darlin Mauricio Mejia, a Honduran national, petitioned for review of the BIA’s October 18, 2013 order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- Mejia arrived in the U.S. in 1999 but did not apply for asylum until 2011. He attributed the delay to immigration consultant fraud.
- As a teenager in Honduras (ages 12–16), Mejia was repeatedly raped and beaten by two men; he now identifies as gay and HIV-positive.
- The IJ and BIA found Mejia’s 2011 asylum application time-barred and concluded he failed to show his sexual orientation was “one central reason” for the attacks.
- The BIA did not analyze withholding of removal under the later-arising Ninth Circuit standard nor did it address CAT eligibility with respect to sexual orientation or HIV status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mejia’s asylum application is barred by the 1-year filing rule and whether fraud excused the delay | Mejia: immigration consultant fraud in 1999 constitutes extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling of the 1-year deadline | Government: Mejia’s nearly 12-year delay was not reasonable given the alleged fraud; application is time-barred | Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA that the delay was not reasonably excused; asylum denied as time-barred |
| Standard for withholding of removal based on social-group persecution | Mejia: his sexual orientation was a reason for past persecution and warrants withholding | Government: BIA applied the higher "one central reason" standard used for asylum | Held: Remanded — withholding must be reconsidered under Barajas-Romero’s lower "a reason" standard on an open record |
| Whether the BIA considered CAT relief based on sexual orientation or HIV status | Mejia: CAT relief should be considered given risk of torture on those bases | Government: BIA did not make CAT-specific findings | Held: Remanded — BIA failed to analyze CAT eligibility; issue remanded for initial agency determination on the open record |
| Need for remand given intervening Ninth Circuit authority | Mejia: recent cases require different legal standards for withholding/past persecution | Government: earlier BIA decision didn’t have benefit of later decisions | Held: Remanded for BIA to apply Barajas-Romero and Bringas-Rodriguez on open record; parties to bear their own costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for asylum/withholding denials)
- Tista v. Holder, 722 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (de novo review of legal questions)
- Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (mixed questions review standard)
- Viridiana v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir.) (extraordinary circumstances/equitable tolling for 1-year asylum bar)
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir.) (withholding requires that group membership be "a reason," not "one central reason")
- I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (courts should remand to agency for matters placed primarily in agency hands)
- Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (clarified "unable or unwilling" standard for past persecution)
- Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.) (burden on applicant to show government unable or unwilling to control persecutors)