Background
Petitioner Caren Trejo Medina sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision. The immigration judge had denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and post-conclusion voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the immigration judge’s decision.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. It concluded that the record did not compel a finding that the petitioner experienced past harm rising to the level of persecution. The court also found the agency appropriately concluded the petitioner failed to show a nexus between future harm and a proposed social group. However, the court held that the immigration judge’s denial of voluntary departure relied on a physical presence calculation that was no longer valid following Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions regarding deficient Notices to Appear.
What it means going forward
The petitioner remains ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal but is entitled to a new consideration of her voluntary departure eligibility based on the corrected physical presence timeline.