Jaime Osiel Jaimes-Granados, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge's order. The immigration judge had denied his applications for withholding of removal and post-conclusion voluntary departure. The petitioner argued that the agency failed to properly consider the nexus between the harm he faced and his family membership, and that the BIA relied on incorrect facts regarding his criminal history when denying voluntary departure.
The panel addressed two distinct issues. First, regarding withholding of removal, the court applied the substantial evidence standard and affirmed the agency's finding that the petitioner failed to establish a required nexus. The harm Jaimes-Granados faced came from unknown cartel members who threatened his grandmother to convey a message to his entire family. The court held that these actors were motivated by a desire to further their criminal agenda rather than by the petitioner's familial ties. Citing Zetino v. Holder, the court noted that an alien's desire to be free from random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground. Because the lack of a nexus is dispositive, the court also found no need to address alleged due process violations. Second, regarding voluntary departure, the court ruled that the BIA erred as a matter of law. The record and the immigration judge's order did not reflect that the petitioner had been convicted of any drug-possession offense. However, the BIA improperly relied on 'convictions for possession of drugs' as an unfavorable factor in its discretionary analysis. The court emphasized that it has jurisdiction to review whether the agency relied on improper evidence in voluntary departure denials.
The decision requires the Board of Immigration Appeals to re-evaluate the petitioner's application for post-conclusion voluntary departure. The BIA must now weigh the favorable and unfavorable factors reflected in the record, assigning weight to each one separately and cumulatively, without counting the non-existent drug convictions. The denial of withholding of removal stands, meaning the petitioner remains ineligible for that form of protection unless the record changes significantly.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download