Edy Dominguez Pena v. Jefferson Sessions
677 F. App'x 415
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Edy Jose Dominguez Pena, a Honduran national, appealed the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; BIA dismissed the appeal and denied a motion to remand.
- He sought review of the BIA’s order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal; this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- The BIA denied the motion to remand for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for relief.
- The agency found Dominguez Pena did not establish he suffered past harm in Honduras and that any future fear was not on account of a protected ground.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal; those findings were reviewed for substantial evidence.
- The BIA did not address petitioner’s argument that the IJ provided no factual findings or analysis for the CAT denial; the Ninth Circuit remanded the CAT claim for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to remand | Dominguez Pena argued new evidence warranted remand | BIA argued he failed to show prima facie eligibility for relief | Denial not an abuse of discretion; no prima facie case shown |
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial of asylum and withholding (past harm) | Petitioner claimed he suffered harm in Honduras | Government argued record lacks evidence of harm in country of nationality | Substantial evidence supports finding he did not suffer past persecution in Honduras |
| Whether fear of future persecution was on account of a protected ground | Petitioner claimed future persecution tied to protected ground | Government argued petitioner’s fear arose from general civil strife or non-protected motive | Substantial evidence supports agency’s conclusion fear was not based on protected ground; asylum and withholding fail |
| Whether IJ/BIA erred in denying CAT relief without findings | Petitioner argued IJ failed to make factual findings or analysis for CAT denial | Government did not contest need to address argument on remand | Court granted review on CAT claim and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for agency factual findings)
- Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008) (motion to remand/reopen standards and prima facie requirement)
- Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency may deny reopening for failure to establish prima facie relief)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (motive is critical; applicant must provide evidence of persecutor’s motive)
- Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2001) (asylum generally unavailable for victims of civil strife unless singled out for protected ground)
- Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency must address arguments raised by petitioner)
- Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2005) (same)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (remand for further proceedings where appropriate)