Maribel Mejia Jeronimo v. U.S. Attorney General
678 F. App'x 796
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Maribel Mejia Jeronimo, a Guatemalan indigenous Mam-speaking evangelical woman, entered the U.S. in July 2014 with her two daughters and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on repeated domestic violence by her partner Gaspar Carrillo Diego and alleged discrimination for ethnicity and religion.
- Jeronimo testified to multiple violent incidents (bottle blow to the head leaving a scar, choking, knife threat, biting) and threats to kill her; she twice left the relationship and returned, and did not report the abuse to police.
- She asserted membership in the particular social group: "indigenous Guatemalan women perceived as the property of and suffering domestic violence at the hands of their intimate partners, and who are unable to safely leave the relationship."
- The IJ found her credible but concluded she failed to show past persecution on account of a protected ground, that the government was unwilling/unable to protect her, or that relocation within Guatemala would be impossible; IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- The BIA affirmed: treating some claims as waived (CAT, humanitarian asylum exhaustion), agreeing that Jeronimo was not a member of the claimed particular social group because she had safely left twice, and concluding her fear was not objectively reasonable; BIA also found no due-process violation.
- The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review, applying substantial-evidence review to fact findings and de novo review to legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jeronimo belonged to the claimed particular social group | Jeronimo: group includes indigenous Guatemalan women in abusive partnerships unable to safely leave; she is a member | Gov: she does not fit because she twice left safely and thus is not "unable to safely leave" | Held: Substantial evidence supports finding she was not a member of that group (no past persecution on account of a protected ground) |
| Whether she had an objectively reasonable well-founded fear and whether police protection/relocation were futile | Jeronimo: threats and community hostility create well-founded fear; police ineffective and relocation impractical (family health, threats persisted) | Gov: she failed to report abuse; police could protect or she could relocate; no objective basis for fear | Held: Fear not objectively reasonable; failure to report undermines claim; relocation and police protection not shown to be futile |
| Withholding of removal (higher standard) | Jeronimo: past persecution/conceded harm warrants presumption and meets standard | Gov: even if harm occurred, no nexus to protected ground and not "more likely than not" future persecution | Held: Denied—because asylum requirements unmet, withholding (higher burden) also not satisfied |
| Humanitarian asylum & exhaustion | Jeronimo: alternatively seeks humanitarian asylum due to severity of past harm | Gov: Claim not exhausted before IJ; even if exhausted, harm not sufficiently severe | Held: BIA lacked jurisdiction to consider unexhausted claims; on the merits (assuming exhaustion) harm not severe enough for humanitarian asylum |
| Due process challenge to IJ procedures/evidence admission | Jeronimo: IJ erred admitting DHS exhibits, mistranslation, created hostile environment, and misweighed evidence | Gov: IJ acted within discretion, no specific prejudice shown, no mistranslation shown | Held: No due-process violation; no substantial prejudice shown; IJ’s evidentiary rulings within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (review of BIA decision and scope of review)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard; reversal only if record compels)
- Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2006) (definition of particular social group)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (past persecution or well-founded fear requirement for asylum)
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (government burden to show changed country conditions or reasonable internal relocation after conceded past persecution)
- Lopez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 504 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2007) (failure to report persecution to authorities undermines asylum claim absent showing authorities unable or unwilling to protect)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (withholding of removal standard higher than asylum)
- Mehmeti v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 572 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2009) (humanitarian asylum reserved for extraordinarily severe abuse)
- Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2013) (BIA must give reasoned consideration to claims)
- Kerciku v. INS, 314 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2003) (IJ interruptions do not violate due process unless they bar testimony supporting claim)
- Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2000) (IJ acting as partisan adjudicator can deny full and fair hearing)