Yolanda Sanchez-Ochoa v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
690 F. App'x 317
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Yolanda Sanchez-Ochoa, Jose Perez-Murillo, and their son Hector (Mexican citizens) petitioned for review of the BIA’s final order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- Family entered U.S. in 2012 on Mexican border-crossing cards, settled in Ohio; Jose later pled guilty to disorderly conduct after selling alcohol to a minor, triggering removal proceedings.
- Jose testified he and his family fled Juarez after unidentified men (believed to be cartel members) threatened to kill him and demanded his truck and 20,000 pesos; later a neighbor reported men had come looking for them.
- The immigration judge found Jose credible but denied relief; the BIA affirmed based on legal grounds discussed below.
- Petitioners claimed membership in a particular social group defined as all persons in Mexico not associated with cartels or the government, and alternatively sought protection under the Convention Against Torture on the theory police would acquiesce in cartel violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asylum: whether petitioners are refugees via "particular social group" | Petitioners: they belong to group of people in Mexico not associated with cartels or government and face persecution (extortion/threats) | Gov/BIA: proposed group is overbroad and lacks required particularity; threat is countrywide criminal violence, not persecution on account of group | Group not sufficiently particular; asylum denied |
| Withholding of removal under INA § 1231(b)(3)(A) | Same group-based fear supports withholding | Same: inability to identify a cognizable particular social group; risk is generalized | Withholding denied for same reason as asylum |
| CAT protection: whether torture is more likely than not and whether govt would acquiesce | Petitioners: police are effectively the same as cartels; country reports show police/military abuses, so government would acquiesce | BIA: no evidence police were involved or would acquiesce; petitioners never sought police help; country report alone insufficient to prove acquiescence for these petitioners | CAT relief denied—record lacks proof government acquiescence or willful blindness |
| Standard of review / evidence sufficiency | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court reviews BIA factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo; BIA conclusions supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Marikasi v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2016) (standards for asylum eligibility and review)
- Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (particularity requirement for particular social group)
- Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (rejecting overly broad group of persons threatened for refusing gang membership)
- Lopez-Castro v. Holder, 577 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (cannot base asylum on countrywide risk of victimization)
- Koliada v. I.N.S., 259 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2001) (limitations on asylum for generalized criminal violence)
- Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir. 2010) (country reports alone insufficient to prove governmental acquiescence for CAT)