Luis David Meraz Farias, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Farias had been threatened in Mexico but was not physically harmed. He appealed to the BIA, but his brief to the agency did not explicitly challenge the Immigration Judge's finding regarding the nexus between the harm and a protected ground. He also failed to challenge the BIA's finding that he had waived certain arguments. The BIA denied his claims, and Farias petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the final removal order.
The panel addressed two primary issues. First, regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court applied the mandatory exhaustion requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The court explained that to exhaust a claim, a noncitizen must put the BIA on notice of the challenge and provide the agency an opportunity to pass on the issue. Farias's two-page brief to the BIA contained no statement challenging the IJ's nexus finding. Because he failed to exhaust this specific claim, the court lacked jurisdiction to review it. Additionally, Farias forfeited any argument against the BIA's waiver determination by omitting it from his opening brief to the Ninth Circuit. Second, regarding Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, the court applied the substantial evidence standard. The court noted that CAT requires a showing that it is more likely than not the petitioner would be tortured. Farias was threatened once but never physically harmed, which the court held does not rise to the level of torture. The fact that his family members remain in his hometown unharmed supported the agency's finding that internal relocation was viable. Furthermore, Farias offered only conjecture that he could not relocate safely within Mexico and failed to provide proof that the Knights Templar acted with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Consequently, a reasonable factfinder could conclude he failed to satisfy his burden.
The petition for review is dismissed, leaving the removal order against Farias in effect. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that noncitizens must explicitly raise specific legal arguments before the BIA to preserve them for judicial review. It also clarifies that a single unharmed threat, without evidence of government acquiescence or inability to relocate internally, is insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download