Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Santos Regino Ramos Jeronimo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court decided the matter in an unpublished memorandum disposition, after submission without oral argument, before Judges M. Smith, Christen, and Miller. It found jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The panel reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, treated a persecutor's motive as a factual question under that standard, and reviewed the denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion.
On the day of his merits hearing, Ramos Jeronimo orally asked the Immigration Judge for a continuance, asserting that he might potentially qualify for a U visa. He had not yet filed a U visa application and had not received a law enforcement certification. The request was denied. On the merits, he testified that gang members threatened him because they wanted to recruit him, and he received three threats. He did not experience past torture.
Although he had raised additional protected grounds before the agency, his petition for review challenged the agency's decision only as to his indigenous race. The court's nexus analysis therefore addressed only that ground.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that the agency did not abuse its discretion by denying the continuance. Under Matter of L-A-B-R-, the agency weighs all relevant factors in deciding whether to continue proceedings pending a U visa petition, but the primary consideration is the likelihood that the alien will receive the collateral relief and that it will materially affect the outcome of removal proceedings. Other factors include the petitioner's diligence, the Department of Homeland Security's position, and administrative efficiency. Because the request came orally on the hearing day, with no application filed and no certification obtained, the Immigration Judge reasonably relied on the speculative nature of his U visa eligibility.
Second, the court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Ramos Jeronimo did not establish a nexus between his claimed persecution and his indigenous race. He had to show that race was or would be a motive for the persecution, meaning one central reason for asylum or a reason for withholding. The evidence did not compel the conclusion that he was targeted because he was indigenous. He testified that the gang wanted to recruit him, and nothing in the record tied the recruitment to his race. The absence of a nexus to a protected ground disposed of both the asylum and withholding claims.
Third, substantial evidence supported the finding that he failed to show a likelihood of torture. He suffered no past torture, and the three threats did not establish a likelihood that the gang would torture him on return to Guatemala. The general country conditions evidence he cited likewise did not show a particularized risk of torture. The court denied the petition, so the agency's decision stands.
Key Takeaways
- In this case, a U visa continuance request made orally on the day of the merits hearing, with no application filed and no law enforcement certification, was too speculative to require a continuance.
- Evidence that a gang wanted to recruit a petitioner does not show a nexus to race absent record evidence linking the recruitment to the protected ground.
- Without a nexus to a protected ground, both the asylum and withholding claims fail.
- Three threats and no past torture did not establish a likelihood of torture, and general country conditions evidence did not show a particularized risk.
- The panel addressed only the indigenous-race ground because that was the only ground the petition challenged, and it did not review the other grounds raised before the agency.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished memorandum disposition. Under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 it is not precedent except as that rule provides, so it binds no future panel. It applies established authorities, including Matter of L-A-B-R-, Singh v. Holder, and Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, to its facts.
The decision illustrates the deferential substantial evidence and abuse of discretion review applied to immigration records. The court held only that the record did not compel a contrary conclusion on these facts. It did not address whether a differently developed record, a timely filed U visa application, or a claim on other protected grounds would fare differently.