Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7059
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Gonzalez-Medina, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. in 2001 to join her undocumented husband who abused her.
- Her husband injured her severely on multiple occasions; he threatened to kill her and their son, and she attempted to leave but was confined.
- In 2006, her husband was deported after drug offenses; he contacted her after deportation but has since been silent.
- Removal proceedings began in 2006; she filed asylum/withholding application on November 15, 2007.
- The IJ denied asylum as time-barred (filed over six years after arrival); withheld persecution denied for lack of past persecution and likelihood of future persecution in Mexico.
- BIA affirmed the IJ, holding the asylum time-bar proper and that abuse in the U.S. cannot amount to past persecution since it did not occur in the country of removal; relocation within Mexico was not shown to be unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the one-year asylum filing deadline violates equal protection. | Gonzalez-Medina argues time bar treated her differently from others. | Holder contends the time bar serves a rational government purpose and is applied rationally. | Time bar withstands rational-basis review; no equal protection violation. |
| Whether domestic abuse in the U.S. can constitute past persecution. | Gonzalez-Medina argues abuse in U.S. is past persecution. | Regulation requires past persecution to occur in the country of removal; U.S. abuse is not valid past persecution. | Past persecution must occur in the proposed country of removal; U.S. abuse cannot satisfy this requirement. |
| Whether it was unreasonable to relocate within Mexico to avoid persecution. | Gonzalez-Medina argues relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable. | BIA found relocation not proven unreasonable given country-sample factors. | Substantial evidence supports BIA’s finding that relocation within Mexico was not unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abboud v. INS, 140 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1998) (equal protection requires rational basis for immigration line-drawing)
- United States v. Calderon-Segura, 512 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2008) (line-drawing decisions in immigration must be rationally related to a legitimate purpose)
- Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2001) (immigration classifications reviewed for rational basis)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (government not required to adduce evidence to sustain a rational basis; rational-basis review standard)
- Matter of F-P-R-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 681 (BIA 2008) (time-bar restart after leaving for legitimate reasons是否)
- Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2004) (relocation within country relocation burden standard)
- Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (Chevron deference in asylum/withholding context (en banc))
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. N.R. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (two-step framework for agency interpretations)