Otoniel Martinez-Velez v. Merrick Garland, 20-70492

Petitioner Otoniel Augusto Martinez-Velez, a Mexican national, appealed the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the BIA dismissed his appeal.
Ninth Circuit jurisdictional standards: substantial-evidence review for factual findings and de novo review for due-process claims governed the appeal.
The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation based on failure to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship."
The record did not compel a finding that Martinez‑Velez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
Substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusions that the harms Martinez‑Velez alleged did not rise to persecution, lacked nexus to a protected ground, and did not make torture by the government more likely than not.
Martinez‑Velez’s due‑process claims (including alleged failure to consider evidence and request for voluntary departure) were rejected because the record did not show error or a request for voluntary departure.

Issue	Martinez‑Velez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review cancellation denial	He challenged the BIA’s denial of cancellation for lack of hardship showing	The discretionary hardship determination is committed to the agency and not reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(B)(i)	Court lacks jurisdiction; review dismissed
Timeliness of asylum application	Changed/extraordinary circumstances excused his untimely filing	Record shows no changed/extraordinary circumstances under §1158(a)(2)(D) and regulations	Record does not compel excuse for untimely filing; asylum untimely
Asylum: persecution and nexus	He argued he faced harm rising to persecution and on account of a protected ground	Harm was non‑persecutory (criminal/gang violence or random harassment) and lacked nexus to protected ground	Substantial evidence supports denial of asylum for lack of persecution and nexus
Withholding of removal	Same facts establish entitlement to withholding	Factual record does not show harm rises to persecution or is on account of protected ground	Withholding denied; substantial evidence supports agency
CAT relief and due process (evidence/voluntary departure)	He argued likely torture if returned and that the agency ignored evidence and failed to consider voluntary departure	He failed to show torture by or with government acquiescence; record shows no request for voluntary departure and no due‑process error	CAT relief denied; due‑process claims rejected; no voluntary departure error shown

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard: substantial‑evidence review of agency factual findings)
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2004) (de novo review for due process claims in immigration proceedings)
Martinez‑Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) (limits on jurisdiction over discretionary immigration determinations)
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (definition of persecution as an "extreme concept")
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (applicant must provide evidence of motive/nexus)
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (criminal or random violence lacks nexus to protected ground)
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for CAT: more likely than not torture by or with government consent/acquiescence)
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (due‑process claim requires showing of error)