Maribel Trujillo Diaz v. Jefferson Sessions
880 F.3d 244
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Maribel Trujillo Diaz, a Mexican citizen, was placed in removal proceedings after apprehension in 2007; an IJ found her credible but denied asylum and withholding (asylum untimely) and granted voluntary departure. BIA dismissed her appeal in 2014.
- While under ICE supervision in the U.S., Trujillo Diaz learned in Feb. 2017 that her father was kidnapped by Knights Templar cartel; captors referenced her and her brother Omar Daniel, saying they would harm the family if they could not find them.
- Trujillo Diaz filed a time‑barred motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, attaching declarations from herself, her father (describing kidnapping and threats), and an expert about cartel retaliation against family members.
- The BIA denied the motion to reopen, finding Trujillo Diaz failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum/withholding (no individualized, family‑based persecution) and CAT relief (no clear targeting and could relocate within Mexico). Trujillo Diaz petitioned for review.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and held the BIA erred by failing to accept as true the reasonably specific facts in the father’s affidavit and by summarily rejecting relocation evidence relevant to the CAT claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA properly found no prima facie showing that petitioner would be singled out for persecution on account of family membership | Trujillo Diaz: father’s kidnapping affidavit and threats explicitly tied to her and her brother show familial motivation and individualized risk | Govt: evidence is speculative, arises from general criminal/cartel violence, and lacks a direct nexus to family membership | Court: BIA abused discretion by not crediting father’s specific affidavit; must accept reasonably specific facts unless inherently unbelievable |
| Whether BIA properly denied CAT relief for failure to show torture more likely than not | Trujillo Diaz: evidence (father’s affidavit, expert) shows risk of retaliation and government complicity such that CAT relief may be warranted | Govt: no reliable evidence Knights Templar would target her specifically; she could relocate within Mexico | Court: BIA erred—its CAT finding relied on its flawed individualized‑persecution analysis and it summarily rejected relocation evidence without analysis; remand required |
| Whether BIA properly evaluated changed country conditions exception to time bar for reopening | Trujillo Diaz: presented new, material evidence (kidnapping and threats) showing changed conditions and individualized risk | Govt: evidence insufficient to show material changed country conditions or nexus | Court: BIA failed to consider some changed‑conditions evidence (and improperly discredited affidavits); must reassess on remand |
| Whether BIA’s decision displayed a rational explanation and adequate consideration of evidence | Trujillo Diaz: BIA ignored requirement to accept affidavit facts at motion‑to‑reopen stage absent inherent unbelievable findings; insufficient analysis of relocation | Govt: BIA provided reasons (generalized violence, lack of nexus) | Court: BIA lacked adequate rationale, improperly discounted evidence, and provided cursory conclusions—abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Alizoti v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2007) (motion‑to‑reopen prima facie standard and changed‑country‑conditions exception)
- Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2005) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for BIA denials)
- Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2004) (review limited to grounds articulated by the BIA)
- Zhang v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 851 (6th Cir. 2008) (BIA may deny reopening for failure to establish prima facie case)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (motions to reopen are disfavored because of finality interests)
- INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (standards and limits on motions to reopen)
- Haftlang v. INS, 790 F.2d 140 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (at motion‑to‑reopen stage, agency should accept affidavit facts unless inherently unbelievable)
- Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005) (affidavits accepted as true absent internal inconsistency or contradiction)
- Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2005) (individualized targeting standard for asylum/withholding)
- Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006) (fact‑intensive inquiries sometimes require remand for fact finding)