Mendoza-Ordonez v. Attorney General of the United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16100
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Luis Javier Mendoza-Ordonez, a Honduran national and Liberal Party activist, received two death threats in 2014–2015 from a National Party affiliate tied to the man who assassinated his father; he filed complaints with local authorities that produced no meaningful response.
- Mendoza crossed into the U.S. without inspection in 2014 and was returned under expedited removal; he reentered in 2015, was detained, and placed in a "withholding-only" proceeding after a credible fear determination.
- The Immigration Judge found Mendoza credible as to the threats but denied withholding of removal under the INA, concluding the Honduran government was willing/able to protect him and that Mendoza could safely relocate within Honduras.
- The BIA dismissed Mendoza’s appeal, emphasizing pre-2003 convictions of the perpetrators and treating country-condition reports as insufficient to overturn the IJ’s factual conclusions.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision, found the BIA misapplied the standard when treating country reports as if they were "new evidence," and concluded the entire record compelled granting withholding of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mendoza proved entitlement to withholding of removal (more likely than not risk on account of political opinion) | Mendoza: credible death threats plus country reports show corrupt, ineffective justice system; government unwilling/unable to protect; relocation not feasible | Gov: convictions of attackers and lack of evidence of worsening conditions show government can and did act; country reports are general and do not override convictions | Held: Grant withholding. Record compels finding gov't unwilling/unable to protect and relocation not feasible |
| Whether the BIA applied correct standard in reviewing IJ’s factual findings | Mendoza: BIA failed to apply clear-error review and instead used motion-to-reopen standard for country reports | Gov: BIA referenced clear-error standard and its treatment was acceptable | Held: BIA erred by treating in-record country reports like "new evidence," but error was not outcome-determinative because full record compels relief |
| Whether Mendoza is eligible for asylum given reinstated removal order | Mendoza conceded Cazun controls and bars asylum here | Gov: asylum barred by reinstated removal order | Held: Asylum denied consistent with Cazun; withholding-only proceeding proper |
| Whether remand was required given BIA's scant analysis | Mendoza: remand unnecessary because record compels favorable outcome | Gov: typical practice favors remand for agency clarification | Held: Rare exception—court directly grants withholding because only reasonable outcome from record |
Key Cases Cited
- Cazun v. Attorney General of the United States, 856 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2017) (reinstated removal orders bar asylum relief)
- Ordonez–Tevalan v. Attorney General of the United States, 837 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. 2016) (withholding-of-removal burden: "more likely than not")
- Amanfi v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 2003) (standard for withholding of removal)
- Nelson v. Attorney General of the United States, 685 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2012) (reviewing BIA decisions and when to consider IJ opinion)
- He Chun Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence review requires assessing whether record compels contrary finding)
- Kaplun v. Attorney General of the United States, 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (factual findings about country conditions are treated as facts for review)
- Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General of the United States, 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011) (consideration of country reports in assessing government efforts to address violence)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (general principle favoring remand to agency unless only one reasonable outcome exists)