Background
Petitioner Isidoro Dominguez Parra, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The petitioner alleged harm to himself and his family members, including a false kidnapping report, the killing of his nephew during an attempted kidnapping, and an extortion demand.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the agency’s denial for substantial evidence and found ample support for the conclusion that the perpetrators were motivated by financial gain. The court also held that generalized evidence of violence in Mexico was insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture. Finally, the court determined the immigration judge did not violate due process by failing to specifically inquire about the petitioner’s multiple sclerosis, as the judge asked open-ended questions that allowed the petitioner to express his fears.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the motive for the harm Petitioner feared was financial gain that was wholly unrelated to any protected ground.
What it means going forward
The petition for review is denied, leaving the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing the asylum and related claims in place.