Lidia Ramirez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 902 F.3d 764

Background

Lidia Ramirez, a Guatemalan national, was detained after illegal entry and expressed asylum intent; a credible fear interview referred her to removal proceedings.
She alleged a neighbor made sexual advances, she reported him to police (who she believed were bribed), and he later sent two men to threaten her at knifepoint; she feared he would kill her if she returned and claimed she could not relocate within Guatemala.
At the merits hearing Ramirez proceeded pro se; an interpreter read her I-589, the IJ asked yes/no fact questions, Ramirez affirmed the application and declined to add further testimony when given open opportunities.
The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, finding the conduct was personal/criminal rather than persecution or torture; the IJ’s written decision contained factual errors (e.g., misgendering Ramirez, referring to Mexico) and a wrong statutory citation in the caption.
The Board acknowledged the IJ’s errors but deemed them harmless, exercised independent judgment, and affirmed the denial of relief; Ramirez’s subsequent motion to reopen/reconsider was denied as reiterating prior claims and lacking new evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ’s hearing conduct violated due process by being cursory and failing to develop the record	Ramirez: IJ failed to probe beyond yes/no questions, denied fair hearing, and thus violated due process (especially as pro se)	Government: Ramirez had opportunities, answered core questions, and exhausted issues; no prejudice shown	Court: Issue exhausted; no due process violation—IJ asked substantive questions, gave open opportunities, Ramirez declined to elaborate, and she showed no prejudice
Whether IJ’s boilerplate/fact errors (misgendering, incorrect country, wrong INA citation) denied individualized consideration	Ramirez: Errors show IJ used form language and failed individualized evaluation, violating due process	Government: Errors were clerical/boilerplate and ultimately harmless given the IJ’s factual findings based on Ramirez’s testimony	Court: Errors troubling but harmless; core findings were based on Ramirez’s testimony and the Board corrected/discounted CAT-country errors
Whether the Board impermissibly deferred to the IJ and failed to exercise independent judgment	Ramirez: Board merely "defer[red]" and rubber-stamped IJ errors	Government: Board reviewed record, acknowledged errors, and applied independent review standards	Court: Board sufficiently analyzed the record, applied clear-error and de novo review, and independently affirmed denial on substantial-evidence grounds
Whether the Board abused discretion in denying motion to reopen/reconsider	Ramirez: Motion raised due-process defects and relied on Osuna guidance to supplement briefing; argued prejudice need not be shown	Government: Motion rehashed prior arguments, raised no new evidence, and did not show legal/factual error warranting reopening	Court: No abuse of discretion—motion repeated prior issues, presented no new evidence, and was properly denied

Key Cases Cited

Esenwah v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2004) (defines asylum eligibility standard)
Al Khouri v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2004) (IJ must develop record for pro se respondents)
Zine v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2008) (withholding requires ‘‘more likely than not’’ standard, higher than asylum)
Tegegn v. Holder, 702 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2013) (persecution is an extreme concept; harassment/unfulfilled threats may not suffice)
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (aliens entitled to due process in deportation proceedings)
La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (CAT relief analysis unnecessary absent supporting evidence)