Automated Summary
Key Facts
Petitioners Jaime Silva Hernandez and Maria Concepcion Gomez Miranda petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of their requests for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. The court reviewed the cancellation of removal claim, withholding of removal claim, and CAT claim, ultimately denying the petition on the grounds that the hardship determination was not exceptional or extremely unusual, the nexus standard for withholding was properly applied, and the evidence did not establish a particularized risk of torture.
Issues
- The court reviews whether petitioners can establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if removed to Mexico under the Convention Against Torture. The court finds the evidence insufficient to establish a 'particularized and non-speculative risk of torture,' noting that generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico does not meet the required standard.
- The court reviews whether petitioners are entitled to cancellation of removal, examining if their hardship from removal would be 'exceptional and extremely unusual' as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The court finds the petitioners' arguments are not exceptional or exceedingly unusual of parties seeking cancellation of removal, noting that separation from siblings and mixed immigration statuses do not meet the hardship standard.
- Petitioners argue the IJ applied the same nexus standard to asylum and withholding claims, but the court finds the IJ did not err because there was no showing of persecution based on membership in a particular social group, which means they fail both tests regardless of the nexus standard difference.
Holdings
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for review filed by Jaime Silva Hernandez and Maria Concepcion Gomez Miranda challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. The court also denied the petitioners' motion for stay of removal as moot.
Legal Principles
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and immigration judge apply the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard for cancellation of removal, which requires hardship that deviates in the extreme from normal removal circumstances. The hardship determination is a mixed question of law and fact subject to judicial review. For withholding of removal, a less stringent nexus standard applies than for asylum claims. For CAT relief, petitioners must establish it is more likely than not they would face particularized and non-speculative risk of torture.
Precedent Name
- Park v. Garland
- Wilkinson v. Garland
- In re Monreal-Aguinaga
- Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch
Cited Statute
Immigration and Nationality Act
Judge Name
- Christen
- Forrest
- M. Smith
Passage Text
- The Supreme Court has concluded that the application of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard is 'a mixed question of law and fact' that is reviewable.
- Generalized evidence of violence and crime is insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture.
- The hardship determination requires hardship that deviates, in the extreme, from the hardship that ordinarily occurs in removal cases.