Jose Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Jefferson Sessions
882 F.3d 885
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Petitioners Jose Gonzalez-Caraveo and Monica Rodriguez-Flores (Mexican nationals) were placed in removal proceedings after overstaying visas; they conceded removability and applied for withholding of removal and CAT relief.
- Petitioners repeatedly asked DHS for administrative closure (requests in 2011–2013); IJ said DHS denied them and declined to exercise authority over DHS decisions.
- At merits hearing the IJ found Gonzalez‑Caraveo credible but denied withholding and CAT relief, reasoning his fear was not reasonable and generalized violence did not show likelihood of torture with government consent/acquiescence.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ on withholding and CAT and held the IJ lacked jurisdiction to decide administrative‑closure requests when DHS opposed.
- Petitioners appealed: they challenged denial of CAT relief and argued due process violation from IJ/BIA refusal to independently review administrative closure; they did not press withholding claim on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review denials of administrative closure | Avetisaro‑style BIA guidance supplies a reviewable standard; court can review IJ/BIA denials | Heckler and prior Ninth Circuit precedent preclude review of such discretionary decisions | Court has jurisdiction because Avetisyan factors provide a sufficiently meaningful standard |
| Whether IJ/BIA erred by not independently considering administrative closure over DHS objection | IJ/BIA should have applied Avetisyan factors and independently ruled on closure | DHS opposition could be decisive; IJ lacked authority to override prosecutorial discretion | IJ and BIA erred by not independently considering closure, but remand unnecessary because Petitioners showed no basis under Avetisyan and have no pending collateral applications |
| Whether denial of administrative‑closure violated Petitioners’ due process rights | Failure to consider closure prejudiced Petitioners and affected fairness of proceedings | No prejudice shown; error was procedural and did not change outcome | Due process claim fails for lack of prejudice |
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief | Record country‑condition evidence and family murders show torture is more likely than not with state acquiescence | Evidence is generalized and does not show likelihood of torture by or with government consent/acquiescence | Denial of CAT relief affirmed (substantial‑evidence standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (distinguishing enforcement nonreviewability)
- Diaz‑Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.) (prior lack of reviewability for administrative closure)
- Ekimian v. I.N.S., 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.) (requirement of a sufficiently meaningful standard)
- Aguilar‑Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701 (9th Cir.) (CAT standard and that country‑conditions evidence may suffice)
- Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir.) (BIA must consider evidence; a catchall phrase is insufficient if record suggests evidence was ignored)
- Vahora v. Holder, 626 F.3d 907 (7th Cir.) (administrative closure is judicially reviewable procedural ruling)
- Gonzalez‑Vega v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 738 (8th Cir.) (Avetisyan supplies a useable standard; circuit review proper)