Jaime Delgado-Gomez v. Merrick Garland
14-72241
| 9th Cir. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Petitioner Jaime Enrique Delgado‑Gomez, a Mexican national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal (No. 14‑72241).
- He later filed a motion to reopen to pursue cancellation of removal based on hardship to his U.S. spouse; the BIA denied the motion (No. 20‑71652).
- The agency found Delgado‑Gomez failed to show past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico, and denied CAT relief for failure to show torture by or with government consent or acquiescence.
- Delgado‑Gomez did not administratively exhaust certain challenges to the agency’s timeliness rejection of his asylum application.
- The BIA denied the motion to reopen because the cancellation application contained vague, undocumented statements that failed to establish a prima facie case of “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to his husband.
- The Ninth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part the petition in No. 14‑72241 and denied the petition in No. 20‑71652; temporary stays of removal remain until mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review challenge to asylum untimeliness | Delgado‑Gomez argued the agency erred in rejecting his asylum application as untimely | Government: issue was not raised before the agency, so court lacks jurisdiction | Court: lacks jurisdiction because Delgado‑Gomez did not exhaust the claim before the agency |
| BIA streamlining challenge | Delgado‑Gomez contended the BIA’s streamlining procedures were improper | Government: the BIA’s order here was not a streamlined decision | Court: rejected challenge because the BIA’s order was not streamlined |
| Withholding of removal (past/future persecution) | He argued he suffered past persecution and faces a clear probability of future persecution | Government: evidence is insufficient to show persecution or that relocation is unreasonable | Court: substantial evidence supports denial—no past persecution and no clear probability of future persecution |
| CAT protection | He argued he is more likely than not to be tortured if returned | Government: no showing of torture by or with government consent/acquiescence | Court: substantial evidence supports CAT denial (no likely torture with state consent/acquiescence) |
| Motion to reopen for cancellation (hardship) | He argued reopening warranted because removal would cause his husband exceptional and extremely unusual hardship | Government: application statements were vague, unsupported, and fail to make a prima facie showing | Court: BIA did not abuse discretion; motion denied for failure to establish prima facie case |
Key Cases Cited
- Ibarra‑Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9th Cir.) (due process review standard)
- Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir.) (substantial‑evidence review standard)
- Duran‑Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.) (definition/threshold of persecution and relocation analysis)
- Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir.) (CAT requirement of government consent or acquiescence)
- Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (BIA may deny reopening for failure to establish prima facie case)
- Cano‑Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960 (9th Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for motions to reopen)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir.) (exhaustion requirement for judicial review)
- Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906 (9th Cir.) (‘‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’’ is a demanding standard)