Jose Alexander Alvarado Hernandez sought protection from removal to his home country, requesting asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He alleged that a gang targeted him for harm. An Immigration Judge denied his claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision. The petitioner then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, arguing that the BIA's findings were legally insufficient. The core dispute centered on whether the harm he faced was motivated by a protected ground, such as membership in a particular social group, or by criminal motives related to drug trafficking.
The Ninth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard of review, which requires the court to uphold the BIA's determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. The court focused on the nexus requirement, which demands a link between the persecution and a protected ground. The record supported the BIA's finding that the gang targeted Hernandez because he refused to sell drugs. The court cited precedent establishing that a desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence bears no nexus to a protected ground. Although the gang knew Hernandez was related to his brother, the court held that this relationship alone did not compel the conclusion that it motivated the persecution. Because the nexus was not established, the claims for asylum and withholding of removal failed. Additionally, the court addressed the Convention Against Torture claim, noting that while Hernandez mentioned it in his brief, he made no substantive argument challenging the denial. Under BIA precedent, a claim is forfeited when it is not developed in the brief.
The petition for review is denied, and the removal order against Jose Alexander Alvarado Hernandez remains in effect. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that victims of gang violence must prove the gang's motivation was tied to a protected characteristic, not merely criminal opportunism or refusal to participate in illegal activities. It also clarifies that failing to develop a Convention Against Torture argument in an appeal brief results in forfeiture of that claim.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download