Orlando Reyes-Navarro and Teresa Fragoso-Sanchez, a married couple from Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that dismissed their appeals of an immigration judge's orders. The immigration judge had denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The petitioners claimed they faced persecution from a family member, Juventino, who murdered the wife's father and threatened other family members. While the petitioners themselves were not physically harmed, they argued that the violence against their family constituted past persecution and created a well-founded fear of future harm. They also argued that internal relocation within Mexico was not a viable option due to the alleged involvement of the persecutor with the Zetas cartel and their own social and financial constraints.
The Ninth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard to the agency's factual determinations. First, regarding past persecution, the court noted that while harm to family members can contribute to a finding of persecution, it is not sufficient standing alone. The record showed that Juventino murdered the wife's father and threatened others, but he never physically harmed the petitioners. The court explained that persecution is most likely found where threats are repeated, specific, and combined with confrontation or other mistreatment. Here, the petitioners lived openly in Mexico for years without being physically confronted. Second, regarding future persecution, the court held that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that internal relocation would be unsafe or unreasonable. Although they claimed a nationwide risk due to the Zetas cartel, their own country-conditions evidence showed the cartel did not operate throughout Mexico. Furthermore, the immigration judge had considered the petitioners' age, work history, and ability to support themselves, and the petitioners provided no evidence of specific financial or social constraints that would make relocation unreasonable. Finally, the court noted that the petitioners forfeited their challenge to the denial of Convention Against Torture relief by not addressing it in their opening brief.
The petition is denied, leaving the Board of Immigration Appeals' adverse decision final. The petitioners remain subject to removal from the United States. The decision reinforces the legal principle that indirect harm to family members does not automatically constitute past persecution and places a high burden on applicants to prove that internal relocation is not a reasonable option.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download