Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carolina Salinas Luna and her two minor sons, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion. The petitioners claimed they were targeted by criminal actors in Mexico who demanded money and threatened to harm them. The IJ found that the incidents described—two encounters with unarmed, masked men demanding money at the petitioner's store and on the street—did not rise to the level of past persecution. The IJ also concluded that the petitioner could reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid future harm and that the petitioners failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT protection.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determination that the unfulfilled, vague threats unaccompanied by violence did not constitute past persecution. The court further held that the petitioner forfeited any challenge to the IJ's independent finding that she could reasonably relocate within Mexico, which alone was dispositive. Because the petitioner could not meet the lower asylum standard, she necessarily failed to meet the higher 'more likely than not' standard for withholding of removal. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of CAT protection, finding the record contained only generalized evidence of violence insufficient to show a likelihood of torture or government acquiescence.
Key Takeaways
- Unfulfilled threats that are vague, anonymous, and unaccompanied by physical violence rarely constitute past persecution.
- A petitioner's failure to challenge an IJ's alternative, independently dispositive finding—such as reasonable internal relocation—results in forfeiture of that issue on appeal.
- An applicant who fails to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear for asylum necessarily fails to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal.
- Generalized evidence of crime and violence in a country, without specific evidence linking the petitioner to a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of government officials, is insufficient for CAT relief.
- Police failure to respond to reports of general crime does not, by itself, establish government acquiescence to torture.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the Ninth Circuit's stringent standards for establishing past persecution based on threats alone, requiring specificity, menace, and accompanying violence. It underscores the procedural consequence of failing to brief a challenge to an alternative ground of decision, such as internal relocation, which can independently doom a petition. The decision also clarifies that generalized country conditions evidence cannot substitute for the specific, individualized showing of likely torture and government acquiescence required for CAT protection.
For practitioners, the order underscores the importance of matching the requested remedy and the governing standard to the case’s exact procedural posture. The result turns on the record described by the court and should not be read beyond the issues actually decided. Counsel should preserve alternative grounds, identify any unresolved questions, and document the facts needed under the applicable burden of proof.
The decision also shows why lawyers must separate factual findings, legal conclusions, and the ultimate disposition. Appellate deference, exhaustion, mootness, or the timing of process may control even when the underlying dispute is substantial. A careful filing should therefore address each independently dispositive ground and explain the practical relief the court can still provide.