Perez-Ordonez v. Bondi
23-60014
| 5th Cir. | Aug 29, 2025Background
- Estela Pérez-Ordoñez and her sons, natives of Guatemala, sought asylum in the U.S. based on threats and violence from the Mara 18 gang due to her village council membership and resistance to the gang's control.
- Pérez-Ordoñez observed murders and received direct threats from Mara 18 after actively opposing the gang; subsequent threats continued even after relocating to another village.
- After reporting Mara 18 to the police, Pérez-Ordoñez alleged police inaction and suspected gang-police collusion but provided no direct evidence of nationwide reach.
- Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, determining insufficient past persecution and failure to show internal relocation was unreasonable.
- On appeal, Pérez-Ordoñez abandoned most claims except for asylum based on future persecution risk.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether denial of asylum was appropriate based on internal relocation findings by the IJ and BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether internal relocation within Guatemala was unreasonable | Pérez-Ordoñez argued Mara 18 could locate and continue persecuting her anywhere in Guatemala. | Government contended sufficient evidence showed safe relocation possible, e.g., with sisters. | Court held substantial evidence supported that relocation (e.g., with sisters) was reasonable; asylum denied. |
| Whether exhaustion requirement for arguments was satisfied | BIA reached the internal relocation issue on the merits, exhausting it for appellate review. | Challenged exhaustion, claiming Pérez-Ordoñez failed to present the issue to BIA. | Court held issue was exhausted because BIA addressed it on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Orellana–Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (articulates substantial evidence standard and internal relocation in asylum claims)
- Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal relocation may negate well-founded fear of persecution)
- Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2018) (framework for assessing well-founded fear absent past persecution)