Ismael Palma-Balbuena v. Jefferson Sessions
695 F. App'x 230
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Ismael Palma-Balbuena, a Mexican national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after an altercation in Mexico and fear of future harm.
- He filed for asylum untimely and argued extraordinary or changed circumstances excused the delay.
- An immigration judge denied all relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal.
- Palma-Balbuena challenged the BIA’s findings, asserting the harm was on account of a protected ground and contesting the agency’s legal standards and evidentiary consideration.
- He raised additional contentions about Mexican transport operators only in his court briefs, not before the BIA.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo legal issues and for substantial evidence factual findings; it limited review to the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Palma-Balbuena's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum application — excuse for delay | Extraordinary or changed circumstances excuse untimely filing | No such circumstances shown; agency applied correct standards | Denied — record does not compel finding of extraordinary or changed circumstances |
| Asylum/withholding: motive for 2005 altercation | Altercation and fear of future harm were tied to protected ground | Altercation was a personal dispute, not on account of protected ground | Denied — substantial evidence supports finding of unconnected personal dispute |
| Withholding: risk as family member or returnee | Likely harm as family member or because he returned from U.S. | Insufficient evidence of motive or nexus to protected ground/status | Denied — substantial evidence supports no likelihood of persecution on those bases |
| CAT claim: likelihood of torture on return | More likely than not he would be tortured in Mexico | Record does not show likelihood of torture; agency used correct standard | Denied — substantial evidence supports denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of legal questions)
- Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9th Cir.) (deference to BIA on statutes/regulations)
- Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.) (substantial-evidence review of factual findings; CAT standard)
- Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (changed circumstances must materially affect asylum eligibility)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir.) (personal disputes not asylum grounds absent nexus)
- Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (personal dispute analysis)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (applicant must provide some evidence of persecutor’s motive)
- Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir.) (risk based on returnee status)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir.) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider issues not raised before the BIA)