Hector Perez-Mejilla, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States unaccompanied at age 11 and was placed in removal proceedings. During these proceedings, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). His claim was based on a long-standing land dispute between his family and distant cousins in Guatemala. Perez-Mejilla testified that his cousins harassed him with verbal abuse and, in a 2007 incident, approached his grandmother's home with machetes and sticks, threatening to kill him and burn the house down. Despite these threats, Perez-Mejilla and his grandmother remained on the disputed property until he eventually moved to the United States to join his father. The Immigration Judge denied his applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding no evidence of past or future persecution and noting that Perez-Mejilla had not pursued his CAT claim on appeal.
The Sixth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard to review the Board's factual findings. The court first addressed the core issue of whether the threats Perez-Mejilla faced constituted persecution. Citing precedent, the court explained that persecution requires more than offensive treatment or isolated verbal harassment; it generally requires physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty. The court noted that while the 2007 incident involved weapons, the petitioner and his grandmother were able to defuse the situation and did not flee the country immediately, indicating the threats were not of a 'most immediate and menacing nature.' Consequently, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that there was no past persecution. Without a finding of past persecution, Perez-Mejilla bore the burden of proving a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court rejected his argument that he could not relocate within Guatemala, noting that his own testimony showed he was willing to leave his ancestral land to avoid the conflict. The court further held that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of articulating why internal relocation was not feasible. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found it forfeited because Perez-Mejilla did not raise it before the Board. Similarly, arguments regarding a defective Notice to Appear and voluntary departure were forfeited because they were not raised during the administrative process, and no intervening change in law excused the failure to exhaust these issues.
The decision reinforces the high bar for establishing persecution based on family disputes or verbal harassment in immigration cases. It clarifies that a petitioner's willingness to leave a specific location, even if it is ancestral land, can defeat a claim of internal relocation unreasonableness. The ruling also serves as a reminder that failing to raise specific legal arguments before the Board of Immigration Appeals will result in forfeiture of those claims in federal court.