Juan Lopez Rueda De Leon v. Jefferson Sessions, II
697 F. App'x 310
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lopez, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. and claimed fear of persecution by the Mexican Marines after his stepson (a U.S. citizen) disappeared in Mexico and the Marines allegedly ransacked Lopez’s home.
- Lopez and his wife reported the disappearance and protested; they also filed a human-rights complaint and later entered the U.S. with their daughters.
- An IJ found Lopez credible as to the disappearance but denied asylum/withholding and CAT relief, citing lack of corroboration, the possibility the Marines were pursuing the stepson for criminal activity, and no showing of persecution on account of a protected ground.
- On appeal the BIA affirmed: it rejected Lopez’s due-process claims, declined to remand for new evidence, agreed that Lopez failed to show persecution on account of political opinion or membership in a particular social group, and found CAT relief not established.
- The Fifth Circuit denied review of Lopez’s corroboration challenge for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and concluded Lopez could not show persecution or a well-founded fear without the ransacking corroboration; it also held that the CAT record did not compel relief.
Issues
| Issue | Lopez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration requirement / exhaustion | IJ improperly required corroboration of ransacking; BIA should have considered that error | Lopez failed to raise a concrete challenge to the IJ’s corroboration requirement before the BIA | Lopez failed to exhaust the corroboration challenge before the BIA; Fifth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review it |
| Asylum/Withholding — nexus to protected ground (political opinion / particular social group) | Persecution stems from complaints and public protest about stepson’s disappearance; family is a particular social group or imputed political opinion | Evidence shows Marines targeted the stepson (possible criminal investigation); no proof Marines persecuted Lopez for protected ground | BIA/IJ findings upheld: Lopez did not demonstrate persecution on account of political opinion or membership in a particular social group |
| Convention Against Torture (CAT) | Country reports, disappearance, and alleged ransacking show it’s more likely than not Lopez would be tortured if returned; cannot safely relocate | General reports and incidents do not establish it is more likely than not Lopez would be tortured; evidence suggests Marines targeted stepson, not Lopez | Denied: record does not compel conclusion that Lopez would more likely than not be tortured upon return |
| Due process / remand for new evidence | BIA violated due process and should have remanded to consider new evidence | BIA properly exercised discretion; no prejudicial error shown | Denied: court finds due-process and remand arguments lack merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir.) (limits review generally to BIA decisions)
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of BIA legal conclusions; substantial-evidence standard for facts)
- Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir.) (CAT evidence must establish torture with requisite certainty)
- Arif v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 677 (5th Cir.) (possibility of two conclusions does not defeat substantial-evidence support)
- Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314 (5th Cir.) (requirements for exhausting issues before the BIA)
- Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.) (elements required for CAT relief)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S.) (agency findings can stand when evidence permits more than one reasonable conclusion)