Maria Isabel Alcantara Mendez, a citizen of Mexico, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, claiming persecution by her ex-husband. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her claims, determining that the proposed particular social group of 'victims of domestic violence' was not cognizable under the law. Alcantara Mendez petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, arguing that the Board erred in its legal conclusions and factual findings regarding her eligibility for protection.
The panel addressed the claims in two parts. First, regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court applied the doctrine of forfeiture. The petitioner's proposed particular social group was 'victims of domestic violence.' The court noted that Alcantara Mendez did not challenge the Board's determination that this group was not cognizable in her opening brief. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, specifically Orr v. Plumb, failure to raise an issue in the opening brief results in forfeiture. Second, the court addressed an alternative proposed group, 'Mexican women in a domestic relationship they are unable to leave.' The Board had declined to consider this group because the petitioner never raised it before the Immigration Judge. Citing Honcharov v. Barr, the court held that the Board did not err in refusing to consider groups raised for the first time on appeal. Consequently, the petitioner failed to meet her burden to establish persecution on account of a cognizable particular social group. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court reviewed whether the record compelled a conclusion that it was more likely than not the petitioner would be tortured by the Mexican government. The court found the BIA did not err; the record showed the BIA considered country conditions evidence and acknowledged that domestic violence is widespread in Mexico. However, the record did not support the argument that the government would consent to or acquiesce in future torture by her ex-husband.
The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying relief stands. The petitioner's motion to stay removal is also denied, though the temporary stay remains in place until the mandate issues. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirement that asylum seekers must raise all particular social group arguments before the Immigration Judge to preserve them for appellate review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download