Lorena Buenrostro-Moreno and five of her children, all citizens of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The petitioners feared persecution from the La Familia Michoacana cartel in their home state of Michoacan. The Immigration Judge denied their claims, concluding that they could reasonably relocate safely within Mexico, specifically citing their six-month residence in Tijuana without contact with the cartel. The petitioners challenged this on two grounds: first, that the Immigration Judge violated their due process rights by asking the government attorney about its appeal strategy; and second, that the agency's findings regarding safe internal relocation were not supported by substantial evidence.
The panel addressed the due process claim first, applying the standard that a proceeding is fundamentally unfair only if the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting their case. To prove prejudgment by an immigration judge, petitioners must show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. The court found that the judge's single inquiry about the government's appeal strategy occurred after both parties had presented all evidence and made closing remarks. The judge did not prevent the petitioners from presenting evidence or deny them a full hearing. Consequently, this isolated question was insufficient to establish the required deep-seated antagonism. Regarding the asylum claim, the court reviewed the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence. The standard requires that petitioners be ineligible for asylum if they can avoid future persecution by relocating within their home country and if it would be reasonable to expect them to do so. The court noted that the petitioners lived in Tijuana for six months without contact with the feared cartel, and media reports indicated the cartel was not present throughout Mexico. The petitioners argued that their temporary housing constituted 'hiding' and that authorities in Tijuana were complicit, but the court rejected these as mischaracterizations. They also argued that relocation was unreasonable because it would separate them from a family member, Esperanza, who was granted asylum. The court clarified that while relocation might be inconvenient or undesirable, it does not make it unreasonable. Since the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence, the denial of asylum was upheld. Finally, because the government rebutted the petitioners' well-founded fear of persecution by establishing the feasibility of internal relocation, the claim for withholding of removal was also properly denied.
The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' order stands. The temporary stay of removal entered by the court is lifted, and the motions for a stay are denied. The decision reinforces the high bar for proving due process violations based on an immigration judge's procedural questions and clarifies that family separation concerns, while potentially undesirable, do not automatically render internal relocation unreasonable under the substantial evidence standard.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download