Rosa Torres Rosales v. Merrick Garland, 18-71459

Petitioners: Rosa Isela Torres Rosales and four family members, Mexican nationals, challenged denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief by an IJ and the BIA.
Procedural posture: Petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of their appeals and of the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider/terminate; jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Facts relevant to relief: Petitioners reported threats and fear of future harm in Mexico but no sustained physical confrontations documented in the record.
Agency findings: The IJ/BIA concluded that past threats did not rise to persecution and that fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable; withholding failed for same reason as asylum.
CAT: The BIA denied CAT relief for all petitioners except the minor (A206-373-953) on the ground petitioners did not show it was more likely than not they would be tortured with government consent or acquiescence.
Jurisdiction/Pereira claim: Petitioners’ argument that the NTA deficiencies divested the immigration court of jurisdiction failed under Karingithi; the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider/terminate was not an abuse of discretion. Temporary stay of removal remained until mandate issued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether past threats constituted persecution for asylum	Threats and family targeting were persecution warranting asylum	Threats alone, without physical harm or confrontation, do not amount to persecution	Denied; substantial evidence supports no past persecution
Whether fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable	Past threats and conditions in Mexico made future harm objectively reasonable	Evidence did not show a non-speculative, objectively reasonable fear	Denied; fear of future persecution not objectively reasonable
Whether withholding of removal is available	If asylum warranted, withholding follows	Withholding requires higher showing; asylum not established here	Denied; withholding fails because asylum eligibility not shown
Whether petitioners face more-likely-than-not torture (CAT)	Government acquiescence or consent makes torture likely upon return	Record does not establish likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence	Denied for all petitioners except the minor (agency decision supported by substantial evidence)
Whether NTA defects under Pereira v. Sessions divested jurisdiction and required termination	Pereira invalidates NTAs missing time/date, so proceedings must be terminated	Under Karingithi, an NTA need not include time/date to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court	Pereira-based jurisdictional claim rejected; motion to reconsider/terminate denial affirmed

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for asylum/withholding review and relationship between asylum and withholding)
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2019) (threats alone rarely constitute persecution)
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2000) (death threats without physical harm may not rise to persecution)
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (speculative possibility of future persecution insufficient)
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAT standard: more-likely-than-not risk and government acquiescence)
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005) (denial of motion to reconsider reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not include time/date to vest immigration court jurisdiction)
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (Supreme Court decision addressing notice to appear requirements under the INA)