Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Domingo Ernesto Cornejo-Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection based on threatening telephone calls. He had not been physically confronted or harmed, remained safely in El Salvador for two years after the calls began, and received no further calls after entering the United States in 2014.
He also requested a continuance after a recent marriage so that an I-130 family petition and possible adjustment process could develop. The immigration judge denied relief and a continuance, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied review. Substantial evidence supported the finding that unfulfilled telephone threats, without confrontation or physical harm, did not amount to past persecution. His ability to remain safely for two years and the lack of continuing threats also undermined an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
The CAT claim failed because the record did not show that torture was more likely than not or that Salvadoran officials would consent to or acquiesce in it. Officials had not been told about the calls. The agency also acted within its discretion in denying a continuance: approval of the family petition, application of the bona fide marriage exception, his spouse’s naturalization, and ultimate adjustment eligibility were all speculative. The decision rested on those case-specific factors rather than administrative convenience.
Key Takeaways
- Unfulfilled threats rarely establish persecution without additional circumstances showing severity or immediacy.
- A period of safe residence after threats and lack of a persecutor’s continuing interest can defeat a future-fear claim.
- CAT protection requires evidence connecting likely torture to official action, consent, or acquiescence.
- A recent marriage does not automatically establish good cause for a continuance when several necessary immigration steps remain uncertain.
Why It Matters
The disposition shows the importance of documenting the context and continuing effect of threats rather than relying on their wording alone. Reports to authorities, later contacts, physical confrontations, and evidence of ongoing interest can change the analysis.
For continuance requests, counsel should provide concrete evidence about petition filing, approvability, visa availability, and adjustment eligibility. A chain of hoped-for future events may not be enough.
The court did not announce that telephone threats can never constitute persecution. It evaluated their fulfillment, surrounding confrontation, physical harm, duration, and whether the caller continued to show interest. Practitioners should develop those contextual facts, including frequency, specificity, the persecutor’s capacity to act, harm to similarly situated people, relocation efforts, and the psychological or economic effects on the applicant.
The continuance analysis was likewise cumulative. Several contingencies stood between the marriage and potential adjustment, including petition approval, the marriage exception, the spouse’s status, and the petitioner’s own eligibility. A well-supported request should reduce uncertainty with filed receipts, documentary proof of the relationship, a clear statutory pathway, expected timing, and a candid treatment of possible inadmissibility. Good cause is easier to demonstrate when collateral relief is concrete rather than merely possible.
As a practical matter, lawyers should preserve the governing issue clearly, build the factual record before the trial court or agency, and distinguish what the decision resolves from questions left open. Careful issue framing and complete supporting evidence remain essential at every stage of court review, including any later appeal or subsequent remand proceeding.