Ernesto Esparza-Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions, III
690 F. App'x 268
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ernesto Esparza-Sanchez, proceeding pro se, sought review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
- He submitted new evidence including a letter purportedly from a Mexican labor-union leader claiming the union wanted to kill him.
- The BIA denied reopening for failure to establish a prima facie claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection, citing insufficiency and questioning whether Mexican authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect him.
- Esparza-Sanchez argued the BIA misapplied the legal standard, failed to consider all evidence, and did not assess whether he had a well-founded fear based on political opinion.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion but found some issues unexhausted and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction; it otherwise denied the petition on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / exhaustion | BIA erred on legal standard and overlooked evidence | Issues raised for first time on appeal are unexhausted | Court dismissed those claims for lack of jurisdiction because they were not raised in a BIA reconsideration motion |
| Standard of review | Movant contends BIA improperly weighed evidence | BIA applied discretionary standard and may deny reopening for failure to make prima facie showing | Court applied highly deferential abuse-of-discretion review and upheld BIA’s discretion |
| Asylum / withholding (prima facie) | New letter shows union threats, establishing well-founded fear | Letter unpersuasive; no harm to relatives and family safety undermines fear claim | Court held movant failed to make prima facie showing of asylum or withholding eligibility; BIA did not abuse discretion |
| CAT protection | Union would torture him; union acts with official capacity | Assertions conclusory and unsupported; no record evidence Mexican authorities would acquiesce | Court held conclusory claims insufficient for prima facie CAT showing; denial of reopening upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice I.N.S., 799 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1986) (exhaustion requirement for BIA-reviewable claims)
- Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2009) (BIA decisionmaking issues must be raised in motion for reconsideration)
- Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard for BIA denial of motion to reopen)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1992) (motions to reopen may be denied for failure to make prima facie showing)
- Flores v. INS, 786 F.2d 1242 (5th Cir. 1986) (prima facie asylum showing requires reasonable likelihood of meeting relief requirements)
- Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (consideration of family safety relevant to well-founded fear analysis)
- Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151 (5th Cir. 2010) (CAT requires more likely than not torture with government acquiescence)