Erick Geovanni Henriquez-Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought protection from removal by applying for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. His application was denied by an Immigration Judge, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision. The petitioner challenged the denial of withholding of removal, arguing that he faced persecution due to his membership in a particular social group. Specifically, he claimed he was targeted because of his work as a mechanic and a perception that he had money. However, on his initial application, he had checked the box indicating he was seeking relief based on political opinion, not membership in a particular social group. The BIA dismissed his appeal, citing Matter of Burbano, and refused to address the social group claim because it was not properly raised before the Immigration Judge.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency's decision for substantial evidence and found no error. The court emphasized that an applicant for withholding of removal must clearly indicate on the record before the Immigration Judge which of the five protected statutory grounds they are relying upon. The court noted that while an applicant may raise membership in a particular social group as a ground, they bear the burden to clearly indicate the exact delineation of that group. The court found that Henriquez-Mejia did not clearly indicate he planned to rely on this ground, as he had only asserted political opinion on his application. Furthermore, even if the ground had been properly raised, the petitioner failed to meet his burden to delineate the group. The court analyzed his testimony, which suggested he was targeted for his work as a mechanic and for having money. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that he belonged to a group of business owners, noting that his testimony only showed he was a manager or supervisor, not an owner of the shop or land. Because the lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of a withholding of removal claim, the court did not need to address the petitioner's challenge regarding the determination that he failed to demonstrate past or future persecution.
The denial of relief stands, leaving the petitioner subject to removal from the United States. The decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for immigration applicants to clearly specify the legal grounds for their claims at the earliest stage. It clarifies that vague assertions of persecution based on general characteristics like being a manager or having money do not automatically constitute a cognizable particular social group without a clear delineation of the group's boundaries. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download