Maria Barraza v. Jeff Sessions
677 F. App'x 195
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Maria De La Cruz Barraza, her husband Jose Carlos De La Rosa Gonzalez, and daughter Liliana De La Rosa-Barraza are Mexican nationals who lived in Ciudad Juarez, moved to Colorado, returned to Juarez, then fled to the U.S. after repeated extortion and threats.
- The family entered the U.S. on visitor/commercial visas in 2005 and later overstayed; they were apprehended and placed in removal proceedings. Petitioners conceded removability.
- They applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed their appeals. Petitioners did not challenge the IJ’s untimeliness ruling for asylum, so that claim was unexhausted and not before the court.
- The court reviewed BIA decisions (with de novo review for legal questions and substantial-evidence review for factual findings) regarding withholding and CAT protection.
- Petitioners asserted membership in the social group “landowners in Ciudad Juarez” and relied on news reports of crime/violence; they argued extortion targeted them because they were landowners/wealthy.
- The BIA and this court found the evidence insufficient to show persecution on account of membership in a protected social group or that torture was more likely than not if returned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners exhausted asylum claim | Asylum claim merits review despite IJ’s untimeliness ruling | BIA: asylum untimely; petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Not exhausted; court lacks jurisdiction to consider asylum |
| Whether petitioners qualify for withholding of removal as members of a protected social group (landowners) | Extortion and threats were because they were landowners/wealthy and thus a protected group | Evidence shows anonymous economic extortion, not persecution on account of protected group | Denied; substantial evidence supports BIA that petitioners did not show persecution on account of a protected group |
| Whether economic extortion alone constitutes persecution warranting withholding | Extortion and threats rising to persecution because targeted for perceived wealth | Economic extortion is not recognized as persecution or as a protected-ground targeting | Denied; court follows precedent that anonymous extortion does not require withholding |
| Whether petitioners are entitled to CAT protection (torture more likely than not) | Family faces high risk of torture if returned based on extortion/violence in Mexico | Record does not show likelihood of torture on return | Denied; substantial evidence does not show "more likely than not" risk of torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Dale v. Holder, 610 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2010) (administrative-exhaustion requirement for asylum claims)
- Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for BIA decisions)
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard in immigration cases)
- Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 2004) (clear-probability standard for withholding of removal)
- Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2012) (economic extortion by anonymous actors does not compel withholding of removal)
- Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (landowners may be a distinct social group where specific individualized evidence supports it)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2005) ("more likely than not" standard for CAT relief)