Mendoza-Reyes v. Bondi
23-80
9th Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Petitioners Mendoza-Reyes and her two minor children, all Honduran nationals, sought review of removal orders after the BIA affirmed denial of their asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection applications.
- The initial Notice to Appear (NTA) in their immigration proceedings was defective because it lacked the time, date, and place of the hearing.
- Mendoza-Reyes did not object to the defective NTA before the Immigration Judge (IJ), and only raised related issues on appeal.
- She also requested a hearing continuance to pursue prosecutorial discretion, which was partially granted, but she did not renew the request later.
- The IJ and BIA found the harms described by Mendoza-Reyes, including threats and violence, were not linked to a protected ground required for asylum or withholding.
- The court found the evidence provided by Mendoza-Reyes insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture justifying CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defective NTA | BIA erred in not remanding due to missing date/time/place | Issue was forfeited; not raised during IJ | Against Mendoza-Reyes |
| Retroactivity of Rule | Timeliness rule (Matter of Fernandes) should not apply | Argument not exhausted before BIA | Against Mendoza-Reyes |
| Continuance Request | IJ abused discretion denying continuance | No abuse; no renewed request at next hearing | Against Mendoza-Reyes |
| Nexus to Protected Ground | Suffered threats/harm due to group membership/teacher status | No evidence harm was based on protected ground | Against Mendoza-Reyes |
| CAT Protection | Faces likelihood of torture with government acquiescence | General violence does not meet CAT standard | Against Mendoza-Reyes |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2019) (defines standards of review for BIA decisions)
- Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2009) (explains deference to IJ’s denial of continuances)
- Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012 (9th Cir. 2023) (discusses nexus to protected ground in asylum)
- Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (general violence does not establish nexus for asylum)
- Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (sets CAT standard: likelihood of torture with official acquiescence)
- Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2020) (explains administrative exhaustion requirement)
- Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2016) (nexus requirement is dispositive for asylum and withholding)