Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Palomo petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Palomo claimed he feared harm in Peru based on threats and harassment directed at his father by unidentified groups, but he did not know the motivation for the targeting. The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the final order of removal.
The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Bumatay, VanDyke, and Mendoza, Jr., determined the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. The court applied the substantial evidence standard to the agency's factual findings and reviewed legal questions de novo, noting that denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief are reversed only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. The government argued Palomo failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding internal relocation, a prerequisite for judicial review of that issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. First, the court held Palomo failed to exhaust his argument that he could not safely relocate within Peru because he did not raise the issue in his appeal to the BIA. Citing Umana-Escobar v. Garland and Santana-Gonzalez v. Bondi, the court affirmed that exhaustion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a mandatory claim-processing rule when raised by the government. Because internal relocation is dispositive of withholding of removal claims—if an applicant can safely and reasonably relocate internally, they are ineligible for asylum, and failure to establish asylum eligibility forecloses withholding eligibility—the court did not reach Palomo's remaining withholding arguments.
Second, the court held substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of CAT relief. Palomo testified only that unidentified groups "might come after [him]" because they targeted his father, and he did not know the motivation for the harassment. The court found the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency's determination that such a "speculative fear of torture is not sufficient to satisfy the applicant's burden" for CAT relief, citing Garcia v. Wilkinson. Accordingly, the petition was denied in full.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to raise an internal relocation argument before the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, precluding judicial review of that issue when the government raises the exhaustion defense.
- Because eligibility for withholding of removal requires a higher standard of proof than asylum, an applicant's inability to establish asylum eligibility—including the inability to show internal relocation is unreasonable—forecloses withholding relief.
- A petitioner's generalized, speculative fear of future harm by unidentified actors is insufficient to meet the burden for CAT protection.
- The Ninth Circuit applies a highly deferential substantial evidence standard to CAT denials, reversing only when the record compels a contrary conclusion.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the Ninth Circuit's strict enforcement of administrative exhaustion requirements in immigration cases, particularly the mandatory nature of the exhaustion rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) when invoked by the government. It clarifies that internal relocation remains a threshold issue for withholding of removal claims, and failure to contest it administratively is fatal to the claim. The decision also underscores the high evidentiary bar for CAT relief, requiring more than speculative fears of harm by unknown actors. While unpublished and non-precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, the ruling illustrates the court's consistent application of substantial evidence review and claim-processing doctrines in immigration appeals.