Rosaura Brizuela v. Merrick Garland, 71 F.4th 1087

Rosaura Flores Brizuela and her children (Honduran nationals) entered the U.S. in Nov. 2017, were paroled until Nov. 10, 2018, then placed in removal proceedings; Brizuela conceded removability.
Brizuela applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on MS-13 threats after her partner was killed in Honduras.
At merits hearings the IJ continued proceedings (to allow DHS to address parole), then later found parole had expired, denied asylum/withholding and CAT, and ordered removal.
The IJ found threats (sporadic phone threats over several years, no physical attacks) insufficient to constitute past persecution or to establish a well‑founded fear of future persecution; IJ also rejected proposed particular social groups and political‑opinion claims.
The BIA affirmed: threats did not rise to persecution, presence of Darwin’s mother in area undermined objective fear, CAT relief not established, and Brizuela showed no prejudice from the continuance; BIA dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process — continuance vs. termination	Brizuela: IJ should have terminated proceedings when parole was active; continuance prejudiced her rights.	Gov.: IJ continued to give DHS time to address parole; continuance preserved parole period and did not prejudice petitioner.	No due process violation — petitioner failed to show prejudice; continuance acceptable; abuse‑of‑discretion claim not exhausted.
Past persecution standard	Brizuela: BIA applied a novel two‑step test requiring "extreme conduct" in addition to harm; her psychological injuries show persecution.	Gov.: BIA correctly focuses on persecutory conduct; psychological harm alone is insufficient absent extreme menacing conduct.	BIA’s standard upheld; threats (sporadic phone calls over years, never acted on) do not compel finding of past persecution.
Well‑founded fear of future persecution	Brizuela: if past persecution were found, remand required for future‑fear analysis; also argued resumed threats in 2017 support fear.	Gov.: BIA relied on objective indicators (e.g., Darwin’s mother remained in area unharmed) to undercut fear.	No remand; because past‑persecution finding affirmed, BIA’s denial of future‑fear relief stands.
CAT protection	Brizuela: sought protection from torture upon return.	Gov.: Record lacks evidence showing likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of Honduran officials.	IJ/BIA found burden unmet; CAT relief denied.

Ramirez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2018) (Fifth Amendment due‑process framework in removal proceedings)
United States v. Rodriguez, 420 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2005) (actual prejudice standard requires showing deportation that would not otherwise have occurred)
Lemus‑Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2017) (threats constitute persecution only when so menacing as to cause significant suffering)
La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (threats alone rarely sufficient for persecution)
Cano v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2020) (unfulfilled threats may be insufficient to establish persecution)
Bautista‑Bautista v. Garland, 3 F.4th 1048 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review: BIA legal conclusions de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence)
Marambo v. Barr, 932 F.3d 650 (8th Cir. 2019) (administrative exhaustion principle in immigration petitions)
Santos‑Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103 (2023) (exhaustion requirement is non‑jurisdictional)