CRUZ ALONSO v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-04No. No. 19-71894

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied.

Anahi Cruz Alonso and her minor daughter sought asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection after the Guerreros Unidos cartel threatened her family in Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected all claims, and this court reviewed that decision under the appropriate standards of review.

The court found no compulsion in the record supporting Cruz Alonso's asylum claims. Although she argued she faced persecution based on gender, family ties, or imputed political opinions, the evidence showed the cartel's interest in her family stemmed from the strategic location of their house, not from any of these protected grounds. Similarly, for withholding of removal—which requires a lower evidentiary threshold—the record did not establish that any protected characteristic motivated the cartel's threat. For Convention Against Torture protection, Cruz Alonso's allegations about cartel members' appearance, police corruption, and government malfeasance fell short of demonstrating that torture would occur with official involvement or consent.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether gender-based persecution claim met asylum eligibility standards
Whether family relationship motivated cartel threat versus property location
Whether imputed political opinions were attributed by persecutors
Whether withholding of removal standard was satisfied
Whether tortured would occur with government official consent or acquiescence

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying asylum and related relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Anahi Cruz Alonso filed a petition for review on behalf of herself and her minor daughter, challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying their application for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

We review the Boards factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc)). Substantial evidence review requires us to uphold the Boards decision unless the evidence in the record compels a conclusion to the contrary. Id. at 908–9.

To qualify for asylum or for humanitarian asylum, the petitioner must establish that one of the statutes protected grounds is “at least one central reason” for her feared persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii); see Belishta v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 2004). The persecutors motive is critical for this determination. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing I.N.S. v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)).

First, Cruz Alonso claims that she fears persecution in Mexico on account of her gender. But the record shows that the Guerreros Unidos cartel attempted to recruit her husband because the familys house was strategically located at the outskirts of town. She testified that women in Mexico face high rates of violence, but the record does not compel the conclusion that she in particular fears violence on account of her gender. Next, Cruz Alonso claims that she fears persecution on account of her family ties to her husband. But the cartels threat was motivated by the strategic location of her house, not by her family membership. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Finally, Cruz Alonso claims that she fears persecution on account of political opinions imputed to her by the cartel. But the record does not compel the conclusion that the cartel attributed any political opinions to her or to her husband. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031–32 (9th Cir. 2014).

The Boards denial of withholding of removal was similarly backed by substantial evidence. To qualify for withholding of removal, the petitioner must show that one of the protected characteristics is “a reason” for her feared persecution. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017). The record does not compel the conclusion that Cruz Alonsos gender, family membership, or imputed political opinions are a reason for her feared persecution.

To qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture, a petitioner must show that, if removed, she would more likely than not be tortured “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Cruz Alonsos assertions that the cartel members who threatened her husband were dressed in military-style gear, that the Mexican police are connected to the cartel, and that the Mexican government is corrupt, do not compel the conclusion that she will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a Mexican official.

The petition for review is DENIED.