Roberto Blandino-Medina v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7233
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Blandino-Medina, a Nicaraguan citizen, sought relief from removal under CAT and withholding; his 2008 California § 288(a) conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 is central.
- IJ granted CAT relief and withholding; BIA reversed on the withholding issue by deeming the conviction a particularly serious crime per se.
- BIA remanded to apply a case-specific Frentescu analysis rather than a facially per se categorization.
- On remand the IJ again found a particularly serious crime based on elements, and the BIA affirmed the per se determination.
- Blandino was removed to Nicaragua; the court evaluates mootness, standing to challenge removal, and whether the per se category is permissible, as well as the CAT denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1231(b)(3)(B)(iv) permits additional per se categories | Blandino argues only one per se category exists. | Holder argues agency may create additional per se categories. | Unambiguous: only one per se category; remand for case-specific analysis. |
| Whether the BIA could rely solely on elements to designate per se crime | Frentescu factors must guide case-by-case analysis. | Elements can establish per se categorization. | Not allowed: case-specific analysis required; elements alone insufficient. |
| Mootness/live controversy after removal to Nicaragua | Removal creates collateral consequences and maintains stake via waivers. | No live issue if relief denied; mootness applies. | Live controversy; remand on Frentescu analysis; waiver availability keeps stake. |
| CAT withholding standard and substantial evidence support | Record shows past persecution and likelihood of torture. | Record lacks clear probability of future torture. | Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beltran-Zavala v. INS, 912 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir. 1990) (case law limiting facial per se categories for withholding)
- Afridi v. Gonzalez, 442 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2006) (reaffirmed Frentescu framework for aggravated felonies under IIRIRA)
- Kaur v. Holder, 561 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009) (mootness due to removal when no collateral consequences; contrasted with Blandino)
- Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc: explains agency authority to designate per se crimes in asylum context)
- Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting Frentescu framework and danger to community considerations)
- Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2004) (assists with scope of legal review in asylum/withholding matters)