Background
Petitioners Dania Turcios-Ortiz and her minor son entered the United States unlawfully in March two thousand twenty-one after fleeing Honduras. Turcios-Ortiz testified that gang members coerced her into transporting drugs for six months to repay her partner’s debt, threatening harm to her children if she refused. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied all relief, finding she was statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal due to the serious nonpolitical crime bar and that she could relocate within Honduras to avoid torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the agency’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Regarding the serious nonpolitical crime bar, the court found that the petitioner’s own testimony provided substantial evidence that she knowingly transported drugs, satisfying the probable cause standard required by the statute. The court rejected the argument for a duress exception, noting the statute’s text is mandatory and the Board of Immigration Appeals has previously held no such exception exists. On the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that the petitioner failed to prove it was more likely than not she would be tortured upon return. The court also declined to consider an argument regarding the legal standard for torture because the petitioner failed to exhaust that issue before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that the serious nonpolitical crime bar applies regardless of coercion or duress in immigration proceedings and limits judicial review of relocation determinations to the administrative record.