Francisca Sanchez-Robles v. Loretta E. Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21938
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Francisca Sanchez-Robles, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. illegally in 2003 and has U.S.-tied family; arrested in 2010 and convicted of petty theft (three-day sentence).
- DHS issued a notice to appear; Sanchez-Robles admitted illegal entry and her conviction; counsel later conceded removability at an IJ hearing.
- Sanchez-Robles applied for withholding of removal, arguing fear of persecution in Mexico as a member of a particular social group: people perceived as having money or access to money because of time/family ties in the U.S.
- She testified to prior extortion-type threats and general violence in her hometown (organized-crime conflicts, a cousin shot), but no physical harm resulted from earlier threats.
- The IJ and BIA denied withholding: they concluded her proposed group was not a cognizable particular social group and that generalized crime/violence does not establish persecution on a protected ground.
- On appeal, the government argued the court lacked jurisdiction because she had conceded removability; the court limited review to legal issues and questions of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Issues
| Issue | Sanchez-Robles' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "persons perceived to have money/access to money due to U.S. ties" is a cognizable particular social group | Group is defined by perceived access to funds from U.S. ties and familial connections; thus is a distinct protected class | Perceived wealth/access-to-money is not a protected characteristic and is indistinguishable from general populace targeted by criminals | Not cognizable; court follows precedent rejecting perceived-wealth groups |
| Jurisdiction to review BIA decision under §1252 given counsel's concession of removability | Seeks review of BIA legal ruling on social-group definition | Government: concession rendered removal order non-reviewable except for constitutional/questions of law under §1252(a)(2)(D) | Court has jurisdiction to review legal question of whether proposed social group is cognizable |
| Whether Sanchez-Robles demonstrated clear probability of persecution (fact question) | Evidence of past threats, hometown violence, and risk of extortion show likelihood of persecution | Evidence shows generalized criminal violence/targeting for gain, not persecution on protected ground; factual findings reviewed by BIA | Court declines to review factual sufficiency under §1252(a)(2)(C); failure to show protected-ground persecution defeats claim |
| Relief from counsel's concession about removability (ineffective assistance) | Impliedly argues concession should not bind because petty-offense exception applies | Government points out petitioner did not raise ineffective-assistance or the petty-offense exception earlier; issue waived | No relief; petitioner did not raise ineffective-assistance or develop record, so concession stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Ventura-Reyes v. Lynch, 797 F.3d 348 (6th Cir.) (broad reading of §1252(a)(2)(C) jurisdiction bar)
- Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir.) (waiver of challenges where not raised before the BIA)
- Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485 (6th Cir.) (waiver and procedural default principles)
- Ettienne v. Holder, 659 F.3d 513 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing legal questions from factual challenges under §1252 limits)
- Justus v. Holder, 723 F.3d 105 (1st Cir.) (perceived wealth is not a protected ground)
- Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743 (6th Cir.) (matters of statutory construction are reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D))