The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that the Guatemalan government was not unable or unwilling to protect the petitioners from persecution by narcotics traffickers.
Maria Elvira Rodriguez Romero and her four children, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The petitioners alleged past persecution by a narcotics trafficker responsible for their father’s murder and feared future persecution by the trafficker’s associates.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed purely legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. It found substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that the Guatemalan government was not unable or unwilling to protect the petitioners, noting that police had captured and recaptured the trafficker despite the petitioners’ testimony. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s refusal to remand the case and concluded the Immigration Judge’s comments did not demonstrate bias.
What it means going forward
The petitions for review are denied, and the temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
