Maria de la Asuncion Lopez Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She alleged that she received threatening phone calls over several years from individuals named Diego and his friends, despite moving and changing her phone number multiple times. She also claimed that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect her due to corruption. An Immigration Judge denied her application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision. Lopez Mendoza petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, challenging the agency's findings on past persecution, future fear, and the denial of her motion to remand for cancellation of removal.
The panel applied the substantial evidence standard to the agency's factual findings and de novo review to legal determinations. First, the court addressed whether the petitioner experienced past persecution. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court defined persecution as an extreme concept requiring more than discrimination or harassment. The court found that the record contained no evidence that the threatening phone calls were combined with physical harm, confrontation, or other mistreatment. The court noted that mere threats, particularly those that are anonymous and vague, do not necessarily compel a finding of past persecution. Because the petitioner failed to establish past persecution, she was not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Consequently, she bore the burden of proving that fear independently, which she failed to do. Second, regarding the CAT claim, the court held that the petitioner offered only generalized evidence of government corruption and ineffectiveness. The record showed that the police had investigated her complaints and identified the perpetrators, but the petitioner refused to return to the station for further investigation. The court concluded that this evidence did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not she would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Finally, the court reviewed the denial of the motion to remand for cancellation of removal for abuse of discretion. To succeed, the petitioner needed to show a reasonable likelihood of proving that her removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. The court found that evidence of her daughter's medical conditions, including ADHD and likely autism, was insufficient to meet the stringent hardship standard without explaining how the removal would create hardship beyond that normally expected from deportation.
The petitioner's petition for review is denied, and the BIA's order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection remains in effect. The petitioner remains subject to removal from the United States. The decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar for establishing past persecution through non-physical threats and clarifies that generalized country conditions are insufficient for CAT claims when specific police investigations have occurred.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download