Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch
813 F.3d 240
5th Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Fany Jackeline Ramirez-Mejia challenged the denial of asylum after her prior removal order was reinstated for illegal reentry.
- The panel had previously decided the appeal on July 21, 2015; Ramirez-Mejia sought rehearing en banc, which was denied.
- The central statutory provision is 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), which bars aliens with reinstated removal orders from applying for "any relief under this chapter."
- Ramirez-Mejia pursued withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which the panel recognized remain available to her.
- The court emphasized differences among asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in standards and benefits but concluded those differences do not alter the statutory bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aliens with reinstated removal orders may apply for asylum | Ramirez-Mejia: Section 1231(a)(5) should not preclude consideration for asylum; asylum is necessary to satisfy treaty obligations | Government: §1231(a)(5) plainly bars any relief under the chapter, including asylum; withholding and CAT still available | Asylum is unavailable to aliens with reinstated removal orders under §1231(a)(5); petition for rehearing en banc denied |
| Whether treaty obligations require asylum to remain available | Ramirez-Mejia: Asylum protections are integral to U.S. treaty obligations and cannot be curtailed | Government: Asylum is discretionary and Article 34 is precatory; withholding/CAT satisfy treaty obligations where applicable | Court: No conflict with treaty obligations; asylum is discretionary and Congress did not eliminate withholding/CAT |
| Whether withholding/CAT differ legally from asylum such that statute should be read differently | Ramirez-Mejia: (implied) distinctions counsel in favor of asylum availability | Government: Distinctions support applying statutory bar only to asylum because withholding/CAT have higher standards and narrower effects | Court: Acknowledged differences but held they do not override §1231(a)(5); withholding and CAT remain available |
| Whether the court should rehear the case en banc | Ramirez-Mejia: Requested rehearing en banc to reconsider panel holding | Court/Government: No basis to poll or rehear en banc | Denied — no judge in regular active service requested poll; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015) (panel decision addressing asylum availability after reinstated removal)
- Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard for well‑founded fear for asylum)
- Orellana‑Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (withholding/CAT require more‑likely‑than‑not standard)
- I.N.S. v. Cardoza‑Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (asylum is discretionary and distinct from withholding of removal)