Lourdes Soto Armenta sought asylum and withholding of removal in the United States, claiming she was targeted by a cartel. She proposed two particular social groups for protection: 'single mother head of household' and 'single mother in a place where the cartels are de facto government.' The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her claims, finding that the evidence showed the cartel targeted her because they believed she had access to money, not because of her status as a single mother. Additionally, the BIA dismissed her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting she failed to show that her attorney's performance was fundamentally unfair or that it prejudiced her case. Soto Armenta then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the BIA's decision.
The panel addressed two primary issues. First, regarding the asylum and withholding claims, the court applied the substantial evidence standard to the BIA's factual findings. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, an applicant must show that a protected ground was at least one central reason for the persecution. The court noted that the record contained little evidence supporting the claim that she was targeted for being a single mother. Instead, the record indicated multiple times that the cartel targeted her because they believed she had access to money. The court cited Elias-Zacarias to emphasize that while direct or circumstantial evidence can support a nexus claim, the petitioner must provide some evidence, which Soto Armenta failed to do. Consequently, the lack of nexus was dispositive. Second, regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court applied the Fifth Amendment due process standard, which requires showing that the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting their case. The court found that the BIA properly concluded Soto Armenta did not suffer prejudice. She had not submitted new evidence or explained how the evidence or testimony that could have been submitted would have established her claim. The court rejected her argument that the BIA misstated the prejudice standard, noting the BIA correctly identified that prejudice requires showing that counsel's inadequate performance may have affected the outcome. Because she failed to show prejudicial error, the court did not need to address the Matter of Lozada factors.
The petition for review is denied, meaning the BIA's order denying asylum and withholding of removal remains in effect. The court lifted the temporary stay of removal that had been entered pursuant to General Order 6.4(c), effective immediately. The decision reinforces the high bar for proving a nexus in asylum cases where the harm appears motivated by financial gain rather than membership in a protected group, and it clarifies that ineffective assistance claims in immigration proceedings require a showing of actual prejudice to the outcome.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download