Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Armando Sainz-Aragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of relief.
Sainz-Aragon argued that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative children, that he faced persecution in Mexico on account of his familial relationship to his ex-girlfriend, and that he would more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, meaning the agency’s determinations are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review in full. First, the court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Sainz-Aragon failed to establish the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ required for cancellation of removal, noting that the BIA had specifically considered the children’s medical conditions, including asthma and special education needs, but the record did not compel a finding of hardship deviating extremely from the norm.
Second, the court upheld the denial of withholding of removal, agreeing that Sainz-Aragon failed to demonstrate a nexus between the feared harm and a protected ground, as the agency permissibly concluded the harm stemmed from a personal dispute unrelated to his familial relationship. Third, the court affirmed the denial of CAT protection, finding the record did not compel the conclusion that Sainz-Aragon would more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of Mexican government officials, citing the death of his past attacker, a judge’s prior release of him, and the Mexican government’s prosecution of police officers for torture.
Key Takeaways
- The BIA’s hardship determination for cancellation of removal is reviewed under a highly deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard; the court will not reverse unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
- The BIA explicitly considered evidence of the petitioner’s children’s medical conditions (asthma, nebulizer use, special education history) but found it insufficient to meet the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual’ threshold.
- For withholding of removal, harm arising from a ‘personal dispute’ does not establish the required nexus to a protected ground, even if the dispute involves a family member.
- CAT relief requires showing torture is more likely than not with the consent or acquiescence of a public official; evidence of government prosecution of torturers and fair judicial proceedings undermines such a claim.
- The panel decided the case without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).
Why It Matters
This unpublished memorandum disposition reinforces the high bar for cancellation of removal hardship claims and the stringent nexus requirement for withholding of removal in the Ninth Circuit. It illustrates how the court applies the ‘compelled conclusion’ standard of review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), deferring to the BIA’s weighing of hardship factors even when qualifying relatives have documented medical needs.
The decision also clarifies that personal disputes, absent a connection to a protected ground, do not constitute persecution, and that evidence of governmental efforts to combat torture—such as prosecuting offending officers—can defeat a CAT claim even if the petitioner fears non-state actors. The ruling is limited to the record and procedural posture before the court. It does not decide questions the opinion expressly left unresolved, and an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum is not precedential except as Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 permits.