Petitioners Sandra Liliana Betancourt Cano and her daughter, Salma Janai Obando Betancourt, natives of Colombia, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. They alleged past persecution by a father and an ex-partner. An Immigration Judge denied their claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial. The petitioners argued that the agency failed to properly consider their ability to relocate safely within Colombia and that the severity of their past abuse warranted humanitarian asylum. They also raised issues regarding their mental health and potential future harm from gang violence, though some of these arguments were not fully preserved for appeal.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision for substantial evidence regarding internal relocation and for abuse of discretion regarding humanitarian asylum. The court found that the agency properly allocated the burden to the government to rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution. The record showed that Betancourt Cano had lived safely in Bogota for several years after leaving her abusers and had no contact with her father for over two decades or her ex-partner since 2015. The court held that the agency did not fail to address the reasonableness prong of the internal relocation analysis, as the BIA explicitly affirmed that the petitioner could safely and reasonably relocate. Regarding humanitarian asylum, the court noted that extremely severe persecution is required. The agency compared the petitioner's harm to the standard set in Matter of Chen and found it less severe, noting the abuse occurred in private settings by private actors. The court rejected the argument that the agency ignored PTSD evidence, stating that the agency is not required to expressly parse every piece of evidence if the decision reflects a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Finally, the court noted that claims regarding gang violence and the exacerbation of PTSD were forfeited because they were not raised before the BIA.
The petition for review is denied, leaving the BIA's order dismissing the appeal as final and enforceable. The petitioner remains subject to removal proceedings unless other relief is obtained. The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's standard that internal relocation findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence and clarifies that agencies need not explicitly address every specific medical term if the overall analysis of severity is sound.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download