Background
Nataly Dayana Chavez and her two children, natives of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The petitioners also challenged the Board’s conclusion that their objections to defective Notices to Appear were forfeited and its denial of a motion to administratively close proceedings based on a pending U-visa petition.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board’s decision de novo for questions of law and for substantial evidence regarding factual findings. To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must show persecution on account of a protected ground, which must be at least one central reason for the harm. The court found the petitioners failed to show persecution or that they were targeted on account of a protected ground, as the Immigration Judge found the gangs targeted them for criminal reasons. The court held that objections to defective Notices to Appear were forfeited because they were not raised prior to the close of pleadings before the Immigration Judge, citing Sustaita-Cordova v. Garland. The court also found no error in the denial of administrative closure, noting the petitioners failed to provide a copy of their U-visa petition or analyze its likelihood of success.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the strict forfeiture rule for challenging defective Notices to Appear in the Fifth Circuit and clarifies that criminal motives do not qualify as a protected ground for asylum claims.