Jose Duran-Rodriguez v. William Barr
918 F.3d 1025
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Petitioner Jose Jesus Duran-Rodriguez, a Mexican national and former municipal police officer in Villa Hidalgo, Sonora, entered the U.S. in 2014 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- In December 2013 he received two threats from alleged Sinaloa-cartel sicarios: one telephone call from a leader called "Seventy" demanding cooperation and an in-person approach by armed men offering payment and threatening death if he refused.
- Duran-Rodriguez refused, informed local officials, and left Villa Hidalgo for Hermosillo, where he stayed two weeks without incident before coming to the U.S.; he did not report violence against himself or family and had no personal knowledge that the sicarios had harmed other officers.
- The Immigration Judge found him credible but determined the threats did not amount to past persecution, that internal relocation within Mexico was reasonable, and denied CAT relief; the BIA affirmed on the same grounds.
- Petition for review challenged the BIA’s conclusions as to past persecution, well-founded fear of future persecution (including internal relocation), withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Duran-Rodriguez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether threats amounted to past persecution | Two death threats from sicarios based on his status as a police officer constitute past persecution | Threats alone do not rise to persecution absent violence or other harm; here no violence occurred | Court: Evidence did not compel finding of past persecution; agency decision upheld |
| Whether he has a well-founded fear of future persecution | Threats indicate ongoing risk such that return would be unsafe | He could safely relocate within Mexico (e.g., Hermosillo); no evidence cartel pursued him after he left | Court: Internal relocation was reasonable and dispositive; no well-founded fear shown |
| Eligibility for withholding of removal | More likely than not he would be persecuted on return | Higher standard not met because asylum claim fails; relocation negates fear | Court: Withholding denied because asylum not established |
| CAT relief: likelihood of torture by/with acquiescence of public officials | Threats from cartel make torture likely if returned | No evidence torture or public-official acquiescence is likely; threats by private actors only | Court: CAT relief denied; petitioner failed to show likelihood of torture involving public officials |
Key Cases Cited
- Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing when death threats can constitute persecution)
- Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2000) (threats constitute persecution only in a small category when menacing and causing significant suffering)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (substantial-evidence standard for asylum review)
- Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2005) (consider surrounding circumstances in assessing threats)
- Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2005) (well-founded fear and internal relocation analysis)