Petitioners Heydi Guadalupe Caceres Marquez and her minor child, citizens of Honduras, sought asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after fleeing Honduras following the murder of Caceres's father. An immigration judge denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the denial. The BIA concluded that the petitioners could safely relocate internally to Guarajao Viejo, a territory not controlled by the killers, and that such relocation would be reasonable given their past seven-year residence there, potential familial support, and personal circumstances. The petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the agency's relocation analysis was flawed and that their mental health and changed circumstances made return unreasonable.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief under the substantial evidence standard. For asylum and withholding of removal, the court noted that once past persecution is presumed, the government must show by a preponderance of evidence that the applicant can safely and reasonably relocate. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's safety finding, as the family lived in Guarajao Viejo for seven years without direct threat or harm. Regarding reasonableness, the court upheld the agency's four main considerations: the petitioners' successful past residence in the area, the likelihood of familial support from a husband and mother who remain in Honduras, the adequacy of the agency's handling of mental health concerns given the petitioners' prior coping skills, and the petitioners' youth and physical health. The court emphasized that the agency is entitled to make reasonable inferences from the record and that the dissent's view reweighed evidence rather than applying the deferential standard. For CAT relief, the court held the petitioners failed to show a particularized risk of torture, especially given the supported relocation findings. For humanitarian asylum, the court found the record did not compel a conclusion that the severity of past persecution or possibility of other serious harm warranted relief. Finally, the court dismissed a due process argument as unexhausted.
The petition for review is denied, and the BIA's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief remains in effect. The petitioners are subject to removal to Honduras, though a temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's deferential standard of review for internal relocation analyses, emphasizing that agencies may rely on past safety and reasonable inferences regarding familial support and mental health coping mechanisms.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download