Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carlos Sanchez Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, together with his wife Briseida Kristelle Lopez de la Torre and their children C.E.S.L., B.Y.S.L., and F.M.S.L., petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum. Sanchez Chavez claimed that a cartel targeted him because its members believed his warehouse would be ideal for hiding their weapons and vehicles from the Mexican government, and that when he refused them access, the cartel simply told him that he needed to leave. He argued that these threats established both past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.
The Immigration Judge denied asylum and the BIA dismissed the administrative appeal. On review of the BIA's final order, the panel applied the substantial-evidence standard to the agency's factual findings, under which those findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary, while reviewing questions of law de novo. To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The panel first held that the agency did not err in finding that Sanchez Chavez failed to establish past persecution. He never claimed to have been physically harmed by the cartel, and the threats made against him were neither fulfilled nor direct, repeated, or specific threats of death. Under circuit precedent treating persecution as an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment society regards as offensive, these incidents did not rise to the level of persecution, and substantial evidence supported that conclusion.
Even assuming the threats rose to the level of persecution, the court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's dispositive determination that the harm Sanchez Chavez experienced and feared was untethered to a protected ground. To qualify for asylum, a noncitizen must show that a protected ground was one central reason for the harm, which requires evidence that the wrongdoer knew and cared about the noncitizen's protected characteristic and was motivated by it. The only arguably preserved ground was political opinion, but the record showed the cartel wanted the warehouse for practical concealment purposes and simply told Sanchez Chavez to leave when he refused access. The agency therefore did not err in concluding that an actual or imputed political opinion was not one central reason for the threats. Because his future-persecution claim relied on the same evidence, the failure to establish a nexus for past persecution meant the same evidence would not show future persecution, leaving him ineligible for asylum.
Finally, because Sanchez Chavez's opening brief advanced no challenge to the agency's denial of his applications for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection, he waived judicial review of those rulings. The panel denied the petition for review, and it also denied the accompanying motion to stay removal.
Key Takeaways
- Unfulfilled cartel threats, without physical harm or direct, repeated, and specific threats of death, do not compel a finding of past persecution under the substantial-evidence standard.
- A persecutor's practical motive, such as wanting to use a warehouse to hide weapons and vehicles, does not establish that an actual or imputed political opinion was one central reason for the harm.
- When a petitioner relies on the same evidence for past and future persecution, the absence of a nexus for past persecution defeats the future-persecution claim as well.
- Failing to challenge the denial of withholding of removal or CAT protection in an opening brief waives judicial review of those claims.
- The panel denied both the petition for review and the motion to stay removal, leaving the removal order in effect.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the Ninth Circuit applies the one-central-reason nexus requirement to cartel-related asylum claims, reinforcing that criminal or practical motives for targeting a victim do not satisfy the political-opinion ground absent evidence that the persecutor knew and cared about the victim's protected characteristic and was motivated by it.
It also underscores the importance of preserving every form of relief in the opening brief, because unbriefed challenges to withholding and CAT denials are waived, and it confirms that the same evidentiary record cannot independently sustain a future-persecution claim once the nexus for past persecution fails.