Jessica Yunuen Vargas Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings, seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. She submitted five news articles describing Mexican cartel violence and government corruption to support her claim that she faced persecution based on her political opinion. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion, concluding that the evidence did not show a specific connection to a protected ground or a particularized risk of torture. Vargas petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of that denial.
The panel reviewed the denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. The court emphasized that a petitioner must establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court found that the news articles submitted by Vargas generally described Mexican cartel violence and corruption but failed to show a nexus to a protected ground. The court noted that an alien's desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence bears no nexus to a protected ground. Although Vargas asserted the articles demonstrated open political hostility toward her political party, the court observed that four of the articles did not mention the party, and the final article described a dispute between Mexican officials about American politics rather than persecution against ordinary party members. The court cited INS v. Elias-Zacarias to explain that a petitioner must show persecution because of their political opinion, not merely that they hold one. On the issue of Convention Against Torture relief, the court held that generalized evidence of crime and police corruption does not establish the particularized risk of torture necessary for such relief. The court also found the evidence did not undermine the agency's conclusion that Vargas could safely relocate within Mexico. Additionally, the court rejected Vargas's assertions that the BIA ignored evidence as unsupported by the record. Finally, the court declined to consider arguments regarding a pattern or practice of persecution and membership in a disfavored group because Vargas failed to exhaust those arguments before the BIA.
The petition for review is denied, and the stay of removal will be vacated upon issuance of the mandate. This allows the government to proceed with enforcement of the removal order. The decision reinforces the high bar for reopening cases based on new evidence and clarifies that generalized violence in Mexico is insufficient to prove eligibility for asylum or CAT relief without a specific nexus to a protected ground.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download