Maria De Lourdes Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought protection from removal to Mexico by applying for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Her claim was based on fear of harm from the La Familia Michoacan cartel, citing the kidnapping, beating, and ransom of her husband's nephew. An Immigration Judge denied her applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal. Flores argued the BIA applied the wrong legal standard, but the BIA found insufficient evidence that the harm she feared was motivated by her membership in a particular social group, specifically 'the Flores family,' rather than generalized criminal violence.
The panel reviewed the BIA's legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Under this standard, the court reverses only where any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court focused on the requirement for withholding of removal that a petitioner must prove a causal nexus between a protected characteristic and the feared harm. The court noted that while Flores testified about cartel violence, there was insufficient evidence that the harm was motivated by her membership in a particular social group. Citing Zetino v. Holder, the court reiterated that a desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence bears no nexus to a protected ground. Because the BIA applied the correct 'a reason' analysis and found the evidence insufficient to link the harm to a protected ground, the denial was legally sound. Regarding the CAT claim, the court noted that Flores failed to meaningfully challenge the denial, so that issue was not properly before the court. Finally, the court observed that Flores did not challenge the BIA's decision to reinstate the voluntary departure period, meaning the removal order could be enforced immediately.
The petitioner's petition for review is denied, and her removal order is affirmed. Because the court did not address issues not raised by the petitioner, such as the specific grounds for the social group claim, and because she did not challenge the reinstatement of voluntary departure, the government may enforce her removal immediately. The decision reinforces the strict requirement in the Ninth Circuit that fear of general cartel violence must be tied to a specific protected ground to qualify for withholding of removal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download