Wayura Pramual v. Jefferson Sessions
679 F. App'x 603
9th Cir.2017Background
- Wayura Pramual, a Thai national, conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, VAWA special-rule cancellation, and CAT protection based on sex trafficking and spousal abuse.
- Pramual filed her asylum application roughly ten years after entry; she submitted a psychological report diagnosing moderate depression linked to her trafficking experience.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum as untimely but granted CAT relief; the IJ found no past persecution and concluded the spousal abuse did not include physical violence rising to extreme cruelty for VAWA relief.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the IJ’s CAT grant and disagreed that country reports and the record established a clear probability of torture; it also rejected the other forms of relief on the merits.
- The Ninth Circuit retained jurisdiction, reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, and denied Pramual’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asylum timeliness — extraordinary circumstances to excuse late filing | Pramual argued psychological harm from trafficking impeded timely filing | Government argued the record did not show impairment sufficient to excuse delay | Court held psychiatric evidence did not compel finding of extraordinary circumstances; asylum denial affirmed |
| Withholding of removal — likelihood of persecution on protected ground | Pramual argued she would more likely than not face persecution on an enumerated ground in Thailand | Government argued IJ correctly found no past persecution and insufficient likelihood of future persecution | Court held record did not compel contrary conclusion; withholding denied |
| VAWA special-rule cancellation — battery or extreme cruelty standard | Pramual contended ex‑husband’s conduct constituted battery/extreme cruelty | Government maintained IJ reasonably found no physical abuse and emotional harm not extreme cruelty | Court held IJ’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence; cancellation denied |
| CAT — standard of review and merits (clear probability of torture with state acquiescence) | Pramual argued BIA misapplied Ridore and that country reports supported CAT relief | Government argued BIA applied correct standard and its reversal was supported by substantial evidence | Court held BIA applied correct standard and denial of CAT relief supported by substantial evidence; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Corpuz v. Holder, 697 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for legal and factual questions)
- Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006) (BIA reasoning and incorporation of IJ opinion)
- Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008) (extraordinary circumstances for late asylum filings)
- Lopez-Birrueta v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2011) (VAWA battery/extreme cruelty discussion)
- Zumel v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2015) (when improper standard of review requires remand)
- Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (clarifying which CAT determinations are factual vs. legal)
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (clear-error standard for BIA factual findings)
- Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2013) (BIA decision must be more than conclusory)
- de Alvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 2012) (government’s duty to address merits when jurisdiction is close)