Jose Garcia Navarro v. Jefferson Sessions
697 F. App'x 527
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Jose Manuel Garcia Navarro, a Mexican national, sought to reopen removal proceedings to reapply for asylum, withholding of deportation, and CAT protection. The BIA denied his untimely motion to reopen.
- Garcia Navarro's claim rests on threats by drug gangs to his family after his second cousin was killed. He submitted evidence of generalized violence in Mexico and some family-targeted incidents.
- The BIA concluded he failed to show prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief and the Ninth Circuit reviews the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion.
- The record lacked specific, credible details about the content, timing, perpetrators, or direct threats to Garcia Navarro himself.
- The BIA found the family incidents did not establish a pattern of persecution closely tied to Garcia Navarro and country‑condition evidence was too generalized for CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia Navarro showed prima facie eligibility for asylum/withholding based on persecution by drug gangs tied to family membership | Family was threatened after cousin’s killing; petitioner faces persecutory risk based on family ties | Evidence is insufficiently specific to show a pattern of persecution tied to petitioner; threats are generalized | Denied — petitioner failed to show credible, specific evidence of an objectively well‑founded fear or a pattern closely tied to him |
| Whether generalized country‑condition evidence supports asylum/withholding | Generalized violence and crime in Mexico increase petitioner’s risk | General country conditions do not differentiate petitioner from ordinary citizens; insufficient for relief | Denied — generalized country conditions do not establish particularized risk |
| Whether petitioner established prima facie eligibility for CAT protection | Threats to family and country conditions make torture more likely than not upon return | Threat evidence is vague and generalized; does not show torture is more likely than not | Denied — evidence too vague to meet the CAT “more likely than not” standard |
| Whether BIA abused its discretion in denying untimely motion to reopen | Motion should be reopened to consider asylum/CAT claims based on presented evidence | Motion is untimely and petitioner failed to show prima facie eligibility, so reopening not warranted | Denied — no abuse of discretion; BIA reasonably found no prima facie eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing BIA denial of motion to reopen)
- Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirement for credible, direct, and specific evidence of persecution)
- Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1991) (family persecution can show pattern closely tied to petitioner)
- Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000) (death of one family member does not automatically confer asylum eligibility on extended family)
- Mgoian v. INS, 184 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 1999) (limits on using single-family incidents to establish entitlement)
- Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005) (particularized, specific accounts of repeated family-targeted violence can support relief)
- Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized risks must be differentiated from harms faced by ordinary citizens)
- Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2012) (CAT requires showing torture is "more likely than not")
- Afridi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for CAT review)
- Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (discusses limits of prior CAT precedent)
- Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (general country‑condition evidence insufficient for CAT relief)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.