Fany Ramirez-Mejia v. Loretta Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12564
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Ramirez-Mejia, a Honduran citizen, was removed after illegal entry in 2006 and reentered the U.S. the following month; her removal order was reinstated in January 2012 after a theft arrest.
- She expressed fear of returning to Honduras, and an asylum officer referred her case for an IJ hearing based on her testimony about her brother’s murder and related threats.
- The IJ found credibility but denied asylum, withholding, and CAT; the BIA dismissed the appeal in February 2013, and she was removed in March 2013.
- In May 2013 the BIA granted a motion to reopen based on newly available evidence; the case was remanded to an IJ, and Ramirez-Mejia was paroled into the U.S. in December 2013.
- In February 2014 she presented her case again; the IJ denied withholding and CAT, the BIA affirmed, and she filed a petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinstatement bars asylum relief | Ramirez-Mejia contends 1231(a)(5) does not bar asylum because asylum is not relief under that section | Govt. argues 1231(a)(5) plainly bars all relief, including asylum, when removal is reinstated | Yes; 1231(a)(5) broadly bars asylum when removal is reinstated |
| Effect of parole on reinstatement effects | Parole granted to pursue relief override the reinstatement bar | Parole does not override reinstatement; presence does not cure illegal reentry | Parole does not render §1231(a)(5) inoperative |
| Withholding of removal eligibility | Family membership constitutes a protected group; persecution shown | Family not shown as a protected group; persecution not shown on family basis | Ramirez-Mejia failed to prove persecution on account of family membership |
| CAT protection eligibility | Country conditions and threats show likelihood of torture | Record supports no more-likely-than-not torture; relocation possible | Ramirez-Mejia not eligible for CAT protection |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (U.S. 2009) (relief concept broad; asylum treated as relief from removal)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (discretionary nature of asylum; not automatic grant)
- Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2006) (adjustment of status analogy; reinstatement context)
- Silva-Rosa v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 403 (S.D. 5th Cir. 2007) (analogy to asylum/relief; reinstatement group)
- Herrera-Molina v. Holder, 597 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2010) (alien subject to reinstatement are ineligible for asylum)
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (particular social group, and persecution analysis)
- Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir. 2006) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2002) (torture definition; governmental acquiescence)