Santos Ramirez Portillo v. Jefferson Sessions
705 F. App'x 632
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Santos Anibal Ramirez-Portillo, a Salvadoran national, sought review of a BIA decision that affirmed an IJ’s denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings, found him removable, and denied Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief.
- The petitioner limited his petition for judicial review to his CAT claim; asylum and withholding claims were treated as waived by the court.
- The IJ found Ramirez-Portillo removable; the transcript is partly unclear but the IJ’s notes and record support that Ramirez-Portillo conceded removability.
- Ramirez-Portillo argued the BIA improperly relied on record evidence and that the IJ failed to provide reasons for denying termination; the court determined these arguments were not exhausted before the BIA.
- Ramirez-Portillo also argued the IJ applied an incorrect legal standard to his CAT claim, but he did not present that argument to the BIA, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to review it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner conceded removability | Ramirez-Portillo contends record/transcript do not show he conceded removability | Government points to transcript, IJ notes, and record showing concession | Denied: substantial-evidence supports IJ/BIA that he conceded removability |
| Whether BIA/IJ erred by relying on record evidence to find removability | Ramirez-Portillo argues BIA improperly relied on record evidence after IJ’s decision | Government: evidence was already in record when IJ made decision | Denied: evidence supported IJ’s finding of removability |
| Whether IJ failed to provide reasons for denying motion to terminate and NTA had content errors | Ramirez-Portillo claims IJ’s reasons were unexplained and NTA was substantively defective | Government contends issues were not properly raised to BIA or were addressed as served | Dismissed for lack of exhaustion: petitioner did not present these specific arguments to the BIA |
| Whether IJ applied wrong legal standard for CAT relief | Ramirez-Portillo argues IJ used incorrect legal standard on CAT claim | Government: issue not before BIA | Dismissed for lack of exhaustion: court lacks jurisdiction to review this unexhausted claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing agency findings of fact under substantial-evidence review)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (applicant must present evidence that compels reversal under substantial-evidence standard)
- Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (notice of appeal can serve in lieu of brief in BIA proceedings)
- Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (general challenge to IJ decision is insufficient to exhaust BIA remedies; must specify issues)
- Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion requires putting BIA on notice of specific issues)
- Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (explaining exhaustion doctrine and need to permit BIA to pass on issues)