Jose Manzanarez-Santos v. Jefferson Sessions, 714 F. App'x 696

Jose Manzanarez-Santos is an alien who left the U.S. after a Utah state-court conviction and sought cancellation of removal based on having 10 years' continuous physical presence.
The BIA found he had interrupted continuous physical presence and denied cancellation; it also denied asylum for lack of nexus but applied the wrong (too strict) standard to withholding of removal.
Manzanarez-Santos testified he was coerced into departing; the government produced no signed voluntary-departure form.
The Utah court record contains notations about removal and probation conditions forbidding reentry, but no explicit reference to voluntary departure or an immigration adjudication.
The Ninth Circuit majority held the record lacked evidence that Manzanarez-Santos knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure (so his continuous presence was not broken), upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum for lack of nexus to a protected ground, and remanded withholding for reconsideration under the correct "a reason" standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether departure after state-court conviction broke continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal	Manzanarez-Santos: no, he did not knowingly and voluntarily accept voluntary departure; thus presence is continuous	Government/BIA: the state-court conviction and subsequent return to Mexico constituted a sufficiently formal process interrupting presence	Majority: remanded to grant continuous presence (no evidence of knowing voluntary departure); concurrence: would find process sufficiently formal and dissent from that part
Whether applicant established nexus between feared persecution and a protected ground for asylum	Manzanarez-Santos: cartel targeted his family and he fears persecution tied to family/membership/status	BIA: kidnapping/killings were motivated by money, not a protected ground	Court: substantial evidence supports BIA; nexus not established; asylum denied
Applicable standard for withholding of removal	Manzanarez-Santos: withholding needs only show protected ground was "a reason" for persecution	BIA: applied the stricter "one central reason" standard (used for asylum)	Court: BIA used wrong standard; remand for reconsideration under the "a reason" (less demanding) standard

Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2006) (voluntary departure breaks presence only if knowing and voluntary; record must show alien was informed of and accepted terms)
Zarate v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (departure after formal, documented federal criminal process can be the functional equivalent of an inadmissibility adjudication and break continuous presence)
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) ("one central reason" formulation for asylum nexus)
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (financial motives of persecutors do not establish nexus to a protected ground)
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (withholding of removal standard requires showing a protected ground is "a reason" for persecution; less demanding than asylum's standard)
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1982) (states have no authority to classify aliens)