Petitioners Nancy Delgado-Sarabia and her minor daughter, L.D.-D., citizens of Mexico, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. They faced an order of removal after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld an Immigration Judge's decision denying their applications. The petitioners alleged that they faced harm due to threats made by Delgado-Sarabia's former partner regarding the custody of their child, which they argued was motivated by their status as Mexican women or women leaving abusive relationships. The agency concluded the harm was personal in nature, and the petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit seeking review of that determination.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, a standard that requires administrative findings to be conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court focused on the legal requirement of a 'nexus' between the feared harm and a protected ground, such as membership in a particular social group. The court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that the threats were based on a 'personal dispute over [her] taking their child from Mexico to the United States, and not because of a protected ground.' Citing Pagayon v. Holder, the court reiterated that a mere personal dispute lacks the necessary nexus to a protected ground. The court also addressed the petitioners' argument regarding threats made before the child was taken, finding that this evidence did not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency's finding of a personal motive. Furthermore, the court upheld the rejection of the Convention Against Torture claim, noting that the evidence failed to show that the petitioners faced a 'particularized, ongoing risk of future torture' if returned to Mexico.
The removal order against the petitioners stands, and they remain subject to deportation. The decision reinforces the strict application of the nexus requirement in asylum cases involving domestic violence or custody disputes, clarifying that personal motivations for harm do not automatically translate to persecution based on a protected ground. No remand instructions were issued as the petition was denied outright.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download