Jose Luis Mendez-Gomez v. William P. Barr, 928 F.3d 728

Mendez-Gomez, a Guatemalan national, was previously ordered removed in 2003 after a false-citizenship conviction, was removed, and then reentered the U.S. later in 2003 using a fraudulent green card.
Arrested in 2017 during a traffic stop; Border Patrol discovered his prior removal order and DHS issued a Notice of Intent to Reinstate that prior order. He indicated on the form he wished to contest reinstatement but did not present evidence to DHS during reinstatement.
He expressed fear of return based on threats from a Guatemalan loan shark (Don Lucho) tied to an unpaid debt, alleged earlier armed encounters and threats continuing through 2016, and refusal to report to police due to fear of corruption.
An asylum officer denied reasonable fear; an IJ vacated that denial and placed him in withholding-only proceedings to adjudicate withholding of removal and CAT protection claims. The IJ denied relief; the BIA affirmed.
Mendez-Gomez challenges (1) DHS’s reinstatement of the prior removal order and related alleged due-process violations during interrogation, and (2) denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection. The Eighth Circuit denies his petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review DHS reinstatement	Mendez-Gomez says his reentry was lawful (border agent waved him through) so reinstatement violated due process	DHS contends reinstatement was proper because he unlawfully reentered and he failed to exhaust administrative remedies	Court: Lack of jurisdiction — petitioner failed to exhaust challenge to reinstatement before DHS; cannot reopen prior removal order
Due process re: interrogation after attorney request	He asserts continued questioning without counsel prejudiced him and invalidated reinstatement	DHS argues no prejudice because identity, prior order, and unlawful reentry were established and counsel would not change the legal effect	Court: No actual prejudice shown; reentry remained unlawful as a matter of law (no Attorney General consent)
Withholding of removal (fear of private actor)	He argues he faces a clear probability of harm from loan shark and Guatemalan authorities are unable/unwilling to protect him	Government argues record lacks showing that Guatemala cannot/will not protect him; IJ found no showing	Court: Claim not reviewed on merits — petitioner failed to exhaust the IJ finding that government could protect him before the BIA
CAT protection	He contends he faces torture if returned	Government argues petitioner did not meaningfully present or exhaust CAT arguments before the BIA	Court: Denied review — claim waived for failure to raise meaningful argument to the BIA

Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006) (reinstatement of prior removal order when alien reenters unlawfully)
Etchu-Njang v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2005) (issue exhaustion required in post-IIRIRA immigration cases)
Escoto-Castillo v. Napolitano, 658 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2011) (failure to exhaust administrative immigration remedies bars merits review)
Ochoa-Carrillo v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2006) (proper scope of reinstatement inquiry: identity, prior order, unlawful reentry)
Briones-Sanchez v. Heinauer, 319 F.3d 324 (8th Cir. 2003) (actual prejudice required for due process challenges in immigration context)
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) (standard for withholding of removal: clear probability of persecution)