I.V.Z., a native and citizen of Mexico, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after facing removal proceedings. An immigration judge denied his applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision pursuant to Matter of Burbano without expressing independent disagreement. I.V.Z. then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, challenging the agency's findings. The core dispute centered on whether he could establish that his feared harm was linked to a protected ground and whether the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to protect him, as well as his claim for CAT relief.
The panel applied de novo review to legal conclusions and substantial evidence review to factual findings. The court first addressed the claims for asylum and withholding of removal, which require a petitioner to demonstrate a risk of persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground (the nexus requirement) and that the government is unable or unwilling to control the persecuting forces. The court held that I.V.Z. forfeited review of these dispositive determinations because he failed to specifically and distinctly address them in his opening brief. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, arguments not raised with specificity are forfeited. Because the nexus and government protection findings were unchallenged, they controlled the outcome of the asylum and withholding claims. Regarding the CAT claim, the court noted that the BIA deemed the issue waived because I.V.Z. did not challenge the IJ's denial of CAT protection. The court enforced this administrative exhaustion requirement, ruling that the arguments were not properly before the court.
The petition for review is denied, and the temporary stay of removal is lifted. The decision reinforces the strict procedural requirement that immigration petitioners must explicitly argue every dispositive element of their claims in their opening briefs to avoid forfeiture. It also confirms that failure to challenge specific findings before the BIA results in waiver of those issues on judicial review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download