Three Mexican nationals, Edgar Amador Batres-Alvarado and his family, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA had affirmed an Immigration Judge's decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, claimed they faced persecution due to their connection to the federal police and the threat of Los Zetas cartel violence. The Immigration Judge had determined that while the petitioners faced danger in their home region of Zacatecas, they could reasonably relocate to Mexico City to avoid that harm. The petitioners argued that the agency failed to correctly apply the legal standard for internal relocation.
The panel reviewed the agency's findings on internal relocation for substantial evidence, a highly deferential standard where agency findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court explained that an applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if they could avoid it by relocating to another part of their country and if it would be reasonable to expect them to do so. In this case, the court found the Immigration Judge conducted the required individualized analysis. The IJ considered factors such as Batres-Alvarado's prior connection to Mexico City, the geographical distance from Zacatecas, and the specific reach of Los Zetas. The record indicated that while Los Zetas operate heavily in Zacatecas, there was no evidence they had similar influence in Mexico City or that they were actively pursuing the petitioners there. Furthermore, the petitioners testified they would not be recognized as former police officers in Mexico City. The court also addressed the petitioners' fear that corrupt officials might share their identity with cartels, noting that the petitioners had no contact with these colleagues since leaving Mexico and provided no evidence of the officials' motivations or current connections to armed groups. Under the legal requirement that uncorroborated testimony must be persuasive and refer to specific facts, the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency's determination.
The petition for review is denied, meaning the BIA's order denying asylum and withholding of removal stands. The petitioners remain subject to removal proceedings. However, the court noted that the stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The decision reinforces the strict evidentiary burden on asylum seekers to provide specific facts supporting claims of persecution or the unreasonableness of internal relocation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download