Juan Ramirez-Munoz v. Loretta E. Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5074
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioners Juan Carlos Ramirez-Munoz and Maria Beatriz Adriana Francia-Alvarez are Mexican nationals who entered the U.S. without inspection and have U.S. citizen children. They sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- They claimed membership in the particular social group “imputed wealthy Americans,” asserting that their American appearance (light skin, mannerisms, accent) would cause persecutors in Mexico to target them for kidnapping or torture.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief in 2003. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied their fourth motion to reopen in 2012 as time- and number-barred, finding petitioners failed to show prima facie eligibility for asylum based on changed country conditions.
- Petitioners submitted evidence of increased violence in Mexico to show changed conditions and attempted to distinguish this case from Delgado-Ortiz by narrowing the proposed group to those who appear American and thus are perceived as wealthy.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the Board’s denial for abuse of discretion and evaluated whether the proposed group met the legal requirements for a “particular social group” and whether changed country conditions showed targeted risk.
Issues
| Issue | Ramirez-Munoz's Argument | Lynch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “imputed wealthy Americans” is a cognizable particular social group | Petitioners: a discrete subset—those who look/act American—will be perceived as wealthy and targeted | Government: group is overly broad/not recognized as discrete class; indistinguishable from Delgado-Ortiz | Court: Not a cognizable/particular social group; insufficient particularity and social visibility |
| Whether evidence of changed country conditions overcomes time/number bar to reopen | Petitioners: increased violence in Mexico shows new, targeted risk to those perceived as American/wealthy | Government: evidence shows generalized violence, not targeting of Americans/imputed wealthy | Court: Evidence shows general increase in violence but not that imputed Americans are specifically targeted; does not satisfy changed conditions requirement |
| Whether petitioners make prima facie case for asylum/withholding of removal | Petitioners: fear of persecution based on group membership (imputed wealthy Americans) | Government: no nexus to protected ground; harm is general criminality | Court: Fails asylum prima facie showing; therefore withholding denied as well (higher standard unmet) |
| Whether petitioners met CAT standard | Petitioners: likely torture if returned due to targeting | Government: no likelihood of torture beyond general population risk | Court: Failed to show torture more likely than not; CAT relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejected overly broad group of Mexicans returning from U.S.)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (defines particularity and social visibility standards for particular social group)
- Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000) (defines particular social group elements)
- Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2003) (prima facie requirement for reopening)
- Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for changed country conditions to reopen)
- Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (asylum standard lower than withholding of removal)