Jose Castaneda Flores v. Merrick Garland
17-73071
| 9th Cir. | Mar 17, 2022Background
- Petitioner Jose Castaneda Flores (Mexican native, naturalized Ecuadorian) sought withholding of removal and CAT protection after threats in Mexico.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- The agency found the only threat to be vague, indirect, and unfulfilled; similarly situated relatives in Mexico were unharmed.
- Petitioner raised a particular-social-group claim (Americanized Mexican male deportees) and childhood sexual-abuse arguments that were not presented to the BIA.
- The BIA found petitioner failed to show past persecution, failed to prove a clear probability of future persecution, and failed to show torture by or with acquiescence of public officials; the Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied/dismissed the petition in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past persecution | Threats experienced constitute past persecution | Threats were vague, anonymous, indirect, and unfulfilled | Substantial evidence supports BIA that past persecution not established |
| Future persecution (withholding) | Credible fear of future harm based on threats | Threats speculative; family in Mexico unharmed undermines likelihood | Substantial evidence supports BIA that clear probability of future persecution not shown |
| Nexus to protected ground | IJ erred in nexus analysis | BIA did not rely on nexus in its decision | Court refused to consider nexus error because BIA did not rely on it |
| Exhaustion of claims | Raised group and abuse claims on appeal | Claims not raised before BIA, so unexhausted | Court lacks jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims; dismissed |
| CAT protection | Torture likely with public official consent/acquiescence | Evidence insufficient to show torture with state consent/acquiescence | Substantial evidence supports BIA denial of CAT relief; BIA analysis adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) (review of BIA decisions limited to grounds the agency relied upon)
- Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2021) (unfulfilled or vague threats rarely amount to persecution)
- Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2019) (anonymous or vague threats rarely constitute persecution)
- Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner must show treatment rises to level of persecution)
- Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007) (threats of harm may be too speculative for withholding eligibility)
- Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (harm to similarly situated family members weakens future-fear claims)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal courts lack jurisdiction over issues not exhausted before the agency)
- Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2020) (explains burden to show eligibility for CAT protection)