Gabriela Tello-Espana v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 712 F. App'x 554

Background

Gabriela Tello-Espana, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without admission before June 2003 and was placed in removal proceedings after a 2010 arrest; she conceded removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
In 2011 she applied for withholding of removal and CAT protection, alleging fear of harm in Mexico based on organized-crime violence and being perceived as wealthy after living in the U.S.; she pursued claims based on nationality and membership in a particular social group (single women with U.S.-citizen children).
An IJ denied withholding and CAT relief in April 2012, finding Tello-Espana failed to show it was more likely than not she would be persecuted or tortured on account of a protected ground.
The BIA affirmed, denied her motion to remand based on changed country conditions, declined administrative notice of supplemental country-condition evidence, and denied administrative closure requested pending lifting of a State Department travel warning.
Tello-Espana appealed, arguing remand was required in light of later BIA decisions redefining "particular social group," that the BIA abused discretion by not taking administrative notice of changed conditions, and that denial of administrative closure was erroneous.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand is required so IJ can re-evaluate particular-social-group claim under new BIA decisions	Tello-Espana: Matter of M-E-V-G- and W-G-R- changed the legal standard, so her claim should be re-evaluated under the new framework	DHS/BIA: Those BIA decisions did not meaningfully alter the requirements for particular-social-group claims; remand unnecessary	Denied. Court found no significant change in law warranting remand and relied on precedent rejecting the same argument
Whether BIA abused discretion by denying administrative closure	Tello-Espana: BIA should have applied Avetisyan six-factor framework explicitly and granted closure until travel warning lifts	DHS/BIA: Travel warning irrelevant; BIA may deny closure and is not required to recite all Avetisyan factors	Denied. Court held BIA did not abuse discretion; explicit recitation of all Avetisyan factors not required and BIA provided a rational explanation
Whether BIA erred by declining to take administrative notice of changed country conditions	Tello-Espana: BIA was required to take administrative notice of official documents and current events she submitted	BIA: Taking notice is discretionary and additional evidence would not affect outcome	Denied. Court held BIA not compelled to take administrative notice and reasonably concluded the evidence would not change the result
Overall sufficiency of evidence for withholding/CAT relief	Tello-Espana: Risks from organized crime and perceived wealth make persecution/torture likely on protected grounds	DHS/BIA: Record does not show it is "more likely than not" she would be persecuted or tortured on account of a protected ground	Denied. Substantial-evidence review supports BIA/IJ findings that petitioner failed to meet burden

Key Cases Cited

Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing BIA decision that adopts IJ reasoning)
Ceraj v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2007) (questions of law in immigration reviewed de novo)
Marku v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 982 (6th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard explanation)
Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2006) (denial of motion to remand reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Balani v. I.N.S., 669 F.2d 1157 (6th Cir. 1982) (abuse-of-discretion standards for agency actions)
Reyna v. Lynch, [citation="631 F. App'x 366"] (6th Cir. 2015) (rejection of argument that certain BIA decisions materially changed particular-social-group law)
Alvarez-Mejia v. Lynch, [citation="628 F. App'x 388"] (6th Cir. 2015) (same)
Kaihua Huang v. Holder, [citation="312 F. App'x 420"] (2d Cir. 2009) (BIA may but is not required to take administrative notice)
Yang Zhao-Cheng v. Holder, 721 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2013) (BIA discretion on administrative notice of country conditions)