Joel Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7590
5th Cir.2016Background
- Hernandez-De La Cruz, a Mexican national, claimed he was kidnapped and assaulted by the Zetas and released after agreeing to pay $15,000. He reported the crime to police and alleges subsequent threats and beatings by corrupt officers.
- He applied for withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied relief, finding his mistreatment stemmed from economic motives and that he could relocate within Mexico.
- Petitioner challenged the BIA decision in the Fifth Circuit, arguing persecution on account of political opinion (reporting/whistleblowing) and that “former informants” constitute a particular social group.
- The court clarified jurisdictional limits: many factual challenges were barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) because petitioner is removable for a crime involving moral turpitude; only legal and constitutional questions (and certain legal issues about group definitions and legal standards) remain reviewable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner exhausted administrative remedies on a "particular social group" theory | Hernandez argued he belongs to a protected group of whistleblowers/former informants | Government argued petitioner presented only a political-opinion claim below, not a particular-social-group claim | Court: No jurisdiction to consider a new particular-group theory not presented to the BIA (exhaustion required) |
| Whether "former informants" is a cognizable particular social group | Hernandez contended former informants are an immutable, identifiable group warranting withholding | Government argued such group lacks social distinction and particularity; members indistinguishable from others resisting gangs | Court: Court has jurisdiction over this legal question and affirmed that "former informants" lack required social distinction/particularity; group not protected |
| Whether factual findings about motive (political vs. economic) and persecution are reviewable | Hernandez disputed BIA/IJ factual determinations that harm was economically motivated | Government relied on 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C) to bar review of factual findings for removables with certain crimes | Court: Jurisdiction barred for factual challenges; cannot reweigh factual motive determinations |
| CAT claim and relocation legal standard | Hernandez argued CAT relief was wrongly denied and that he cannot safely relocate | Government maintained BIA/IJ applied correct legal standard and petitioner failed to meet burden to show torture likelihood or inability to relocate | Court: Jurisdiction barred for most factual CAT claims; limited jurisdiction to review legal standard for relocation and held the BIA/IJ applied the correct legal standard and denial was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir.) (limits review to BIA decision absent IJ impact)
- Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407 (5th Cir.) (standards of review: factual substantial-evidence, legal de novo)
- Dale v. Holder, 610 F.3d 294 (5th Cir.) (exhaustion requirement for judicial review of removal orders)
- Hongyok v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 547 (5th Cir.) (court may review legal questions about existence of particular social group)
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.) (framework for social visibility/social distinction and particularity)
- Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405 (5th Cir.) (immutable-characteristic requirement for particular social groups)
- Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788 (5th Cir.) (political-opinion/persecution questions are factual and generally not reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(C))
- Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, 702 F.3d 781 (5th Cir.) (§1252(a)(2)(C) bars review of factual disputes in CAT claims)