Jeidy Esquivel-Rubinos v. Jefferson Sessions, 700 F. App'x 633

Petitioner Jeidy Patricia Esquivel‑Rubinos is an alien seeking asylum, withholding of removal, CAT relief, and cancellation of removal after residing in the U.S. for 14 years before applying.
She filed her asylum application 14 years after arrival; the BIA found it time‑barred under the one‑year filing rule and that she did not claim changed or extraordinary circumstances on appeal.
Regarding withholding/CAT, petitioner alleges persecution related to her father’s death in Guatemala and generally fears violence as a Guatemalan woman; police had ruled the father’s death an accident.
Petitioner proposed “women in Guatemala” as a particular social group but produced no evidence of threats to her or similarly situated relatives remaining in Guatemala.
For cancellation of removal, petitioner asserted that removal would cause exceptional hardship to her three U.S.‑citizen children (lack of immigration alternatives, husband’s uncertain status, economic/educational harms); she contended the BIA failed to consider this evidence, raising a due process argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of asylum application	Esquivel‑Rubinos argued she was unaware of the one‑year deadline (implied extraordinary circumstance)	BIA: application filed 14 years late; no changed or extraordinary circumstances shown	Denied — asylum time‑bar barred; ignorance of law not shown as extraordinary circumstance
Past persecution / nexus (father’s death)	Implied that father’s death reflected persecution	Government: police found death accidental; no evidence of nexus to protected ground	Denied — no substantial evidence of past persecution or nexus
Future persecution / social group (women in Guatemala)	Claims risk as a woman in Guatemala and general fear of violence	BIA: no specific threats; family members remain in Guatemala unharmed; no clear probability of future persecution	Denied — no specific social‑group nexus or likelihood of future persecution
Cancellation of removal / due process reviewability	BIA failed to consider relevant hardship evidence for U.S.‑citizen children, violating due process	Government: IJ and BIA considered totality of hardships, including testimony about husband and family separation; hardship determination is discretionary and largely unreviewable	Court lacks jurisdiction — petitioner failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim; denial not reviewable here

Khudaverdyan v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir.) (standards of review: de novo for legal questions, substantial evidence for factual findings)
Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir.) (withholding of removal: "more likely than not" standard)
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829 (9th Cir.) (CAT: "more likely than not" to be tortured standard)
Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812 (9th Cir.) (weight given when similarly situated relatives remain safely in country)
Romero‑Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887 (9th Cir.) (limits on appellate reviewability of hardship determinations)
Reyes‑Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.) (jurisdiction retained for constitutional questions such as due process)
Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918 (9th Cir.) (de novo review of constitutional claims)
Larita‑Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.) (presumption that BIA reviewed evidence; burden to show it did not)
Mendez‑Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975 (9th Cir.) (burden to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke review)