Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Saul Cano Sanchez, a Mexican citizen, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection after violence by the Knights Templar cartel. He was kidnapped and beaten, family members were kidnapped or killed, money was taken from the family, and the family received repeated death threats.
The immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief, concluding in part that the harm did not amount to persecution tied to a protected ground and that the CAT record was insufficient. They also rejected a due-process claim concerning notice of the right to counsel. Cano Sanchez petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition in part. The record compelled findings that the kidnapping and beating constituted past persecution and that family membership motivated the cartel’s conduct. Because the Board had not decided whether Mexican authorities were unable or unwilling to control the cartel, the panel remanded that issue and the related presumption of future persecution.
The Board also failed to apply the different causal standards governing asylum and withholding of removal. It must determine whether family membership was “one central reason” for asylum and “a reason” for withholding. For CAT, the record compelled findings of past torture and official acquiescence: a town leader knew of the danger yet said he could not provide security and offered a letter to help Cano Sanchez seek refuge. The agency must reconsider future torture. The panel rejected the counsel claim because Cano Sanchez repeatedly received and waived proper advisals and did not ask for more time to obtain counsel.
Key Takeaways
- Kidnapping, severe beating, killings, and family-directed threats can compel a finding of past persecution based on family membership.
- Asylum and withholding use distinct nexus standards; agencies must state and apply each one.
- Official acquiescence under CAT can include awareness coupled with inability or willful blindness, not only express approval.
- Past torture is highly relevant but the agency must still assess the likelihood of future torture on remand.
- A right-to-counsel claim is difficult when advisals were given, waived, and no additional time was requested.
Why It Matters
The disposition reinforces family as a recognized social group and requires immigration adjudicators to evaluate a pattern of violence against relatives as a connected whole. It also prevents the stricter asylum nexus formulation from being imported into withholding analysis.
For CAT claims, evidence that local officials knew of cartel violence but could offer no protection may establish acquiescence. Practitioners should develop testimony and documents showing what officials knew, how they responded, and whether meaningful protection existed.
The panel separated issues it could decide on a compelling record from issues the agency had not yet addressed. It conclusively resolved past persecution, family nexus, past torture, and acquiescence, but returned government control, future fear, relocation, and future torture for agency analysis. On remand, those remaining questions must be considered consistently with the panel’s factual and legal holdings.
The opinion is unpublished and generally nonprecedential, yet it gives a useful example of cumulative-harm analysis. Kidnapping, beatings, deaths, property taking, and threats were not isolated facts; together they showed a campaign directed at a family. Applicants should organize evidence chronologically, connect harm to relatives with harm to the applicant, and document requests for government protection. Official inability or willful blindness may matter even when an official expresses sympathy rather than approval.
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.