Natividad Olivarez Morales, an indigenous Purepecha woman from Arantepacua, Mexico, and her child S.O.O., sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied their applications. The denial was based on the finding that the petitioner failed to prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a particular social group. The petitioner argued that the agency erred by not properly considering her age, the harm to her family members during a 2017 police raid, and the psychological impact of the violence. She also claimed the agency failed to consider the cumulative effect of various harms, including three home burglaries unrelated to the raid. The case reached the Ninth Circuit on a petition for review of the BIA's order.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal under the substantial evidence standard, which requires the court to uphold the agency's determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. The court emphasized that persecution is an extreme concept, meaning something considerably more than discrimination or harassment. Regarding the petitioner's claim of past persecution based on a 2017 raid where police officers entered her community, the court noted that the petitioner hid during the attack and was not personally harmed or threatened. Although she lived near the violence and identified bodies, the record did not demonstrate significant physical harm to her. The court rejected the argument that the deaths of her father's cousin and a classmate constituted past persecution against her, stating that such harm must be part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner herself. The court also addressed claims regarding psychological harm, finding that the BIA did not err in concluding the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate significant emotional or psychological harm. The court clarified that it may not reweigh the evidence to determine for itself whether the petitioner faced persecution. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner's continued residence in the community for six years after the raid, combined with unrelated home burglaries, did not establish an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution. Fear of crime and violence alone is insufficient to meet the legal standard. Because the petitioner failed to meet the burden for asylum, she also failed to meet the higher showing required for withholding of removal. Finally, the court noted that the claim for Convention Against Torture relief was forfeited because it was not exhausted before the BIA.
The BIA's order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection remains in effect. The petitioners are not granted relief and remain subject to removal. The decision reinforces the high bar for proving persecution in cases where the petitioner was not the direct target of violence, even if they witnessed it. The ruling also clarifies that unrelated criminal activity, such as home burglaries, does not satisfy the requirement for a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground.