Jose Cendejas Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General
735 F.3d 1302
11th Cir.2013Background
- Cendejas Rodriguez, Mexican citizen, illegally reentered after a prior removal order; DHS reinstated the 2000 removal order in 2008.
- Reinstatement bars asylum relief but allows withholding of removal; his appeal concerns withholding only.
- An asylum officer found a reasonable fear; IJ referred proceedings for withholding; he filed for two PSG-based grounds.
- Family farmland in Michoacán; family history of violence linked to the Toledo drug-trafficking family; threats and violence occurred to relatives.
- IJ and BIA denied withholding, finding no past persecution or nexus to a protected ground; land ownership and PSGs not proven.
- Court reviews BIA decision for substantial evidence; upholding denial based on lack of personal persecution and absence of nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past persecution showing | Cendejas Rodriguez argues past persecution occurred personally. | BIA/IJ found no personal harm to him, only to relatives. | No past persecution established |
| Future persecution nexus to PSG | Cendejas Rodriguez contends future risk tied to his PSGs. | BIA found no nexus between harm and proposed PSGs; risk not shown. | No substantial risk shown tied to PSGs |
| Cognizability of proposed PSGs | Groups include landowners with farmland and family members harmed by DTOs. | Neither group is a cognizable protected PSG under INA; land ownership not proven; gang-targeting not sufficient. | Proposed PSGs not cognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434 (11th Cir. 2004) (past persecution may create a presumption of future threat)
- Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762 (11th Cir. 2007) (mere harassment or harm to family not enough for persecution)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard for likelihood of future persecution; specific detailed facts required)
- Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2006) (particular social group must be cognizable and not too numerous or amorphous)
- De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2008) (harm to family must be tied to petitioner personally; not derivative)
- Fernandez–Bernal v. Att’y Gen., 257 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion and review limitations for claims)