Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Irma Rosenda Mateo Mateo and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ had issued an adverse credibility determination and alternative findings that Mateo failed to establish past harm or a well-founded fear of future harm on account of a protected ground, and that she was ineligible for CAT protection.
The BIA declined to address the adverse credibility determination, affirming the IJ's alternative merits findings. The BIA also denied the petitioners' motion to remand, which argued that the IJ relied on Matter of A-B-, a decision that had been vacated at the time of the appeal but was subsequently restored as good law by Matter of S-S-F-M- before the BIA issued its decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. First, the court held the BIA did not err in declining to address the IJ's adverse credibility determination because it affirmed the IJ's alternative findings on the merits.
Second, substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum and withholding of removal because the petitioners failed to exhaust their challenge to the IJ's nexus finding—that their proposed social group was not a central reason for the harm—before the BIA. Third, substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT protection because Mateo's fear of future torture was speculative; she did not know her former husband's whereabouts, he had not harmed her family members remaining in Guatemala, and he did not harm her when she previously lived with her parents. Fourth, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand because the legal standard the IJ relied upon (Matter of A-B-) had been restored as good law by the time the BIA decided the case.
Key Takeaways
- The BIA is not required to address an adverse credibility determination if it affirms alternative merits findings that are dispositive of the claim.
- A petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by specifically challenging an IJ's nexus finding in their brief to the BIA; failure to do so bars judicial review of that issue.
- For CAT relief, evidence that a persecutor has not harmed family members remaining in the home country and did not harm the petitioner during prior residence supports a finding that fear of future torture is speculative.
- A motion to remand based on an IJ's reliance on a vacated precedent is properly denied if that precedent is restored as good law before the BIA issues its decision.
- The court reviews the BIA's factual findings for substantial evidence and its denial of motions to remand for abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces procedural and evidentiary standards in Ninth Circuit immigration practice.
It underscores the strict exhaustion requirement for non-constitutional claims, specifically that a petitioner's failure to contest a nexus finding before the BIA forecloses appellate review of asylum and withholding claims. The decision also illustrates the application of the substantial evidence standard to CAT claims, affirming that a petitioner's inability to locate a persecutor and the safety of family members in the home country can defeat a claim that torture is 'more likely than not.' Finally, it confirms that the BIA may deny a motion to remand based on intervening legal authority without abusing its discretion when the cited authority is reinstated prior to the BIA's final decision.