Ruiz Garcia v. Garland, 22-6251

Martin Ruiz Garcia, a Mexican citizen, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in the U.S. based on fears of persecution if returned to Mexico.
His fears were based on (1) possible violence from his home community due to a child-endangerment conviction in New York, and (2) potential kidnapping by criminal cartels as a U.S. returnee.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief in May 2019; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed in April 2022.
Ruiz Garcia petitioned the Second Circuit for review, arguing that the BIA and IJ erred in their findings.
The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions, evaluating evidence under the “substantial evidence” standard and legal questions de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for asylum based on community harm	He faces a real risk of harm from his community in Mexico due to his U.S. conviction.	Fear is speculative; no solid evidence of such harm exists.	Fear is speculative; not supported by evidence.
Fear of kidnapping by cartels as returnee	Returnees are targeted for kidnapping by cartels; he faces heightened risk.	Evidence does not show greater risk to returnees than general population.	No greater risk shown; general risk insufficient.
Eligibility for withholding of removal	He meets standard due to reasonable fear of future persecution.	No well-founded fear established; standard not met.	Failure to meet asylum standard dooms withholding claim.
CAT relief (torture upon return)	Faces more-likely-than-not risk of torture if returned.	No individualized, credible evidence of such risk to plaintiff.	No individual risk established; relief denied.

Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (fear of future harm must be supported by solid evidence, not speculation)
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (well-founded fear of persecution requires both subjective and objective elements)
Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1999) (general violence in home country does not constitute persecution for asylum purposes)
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for establishing a reasonable possibility of future persecution)