Eulalia Mateo-Mateo v. Merrick B. Garland

124 F.4th 470 (7th Cir. 2024) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · December 23, 2024 · No. No. 23-2694

Summary

This Seventh Circuit opinion reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief for a Guatemalan national. The court denies the petition for review, finding that the petitioner waived her challenge to the government's inability to protect her and that substantial evidence supports the lower tribunal's conclusion that her harm stemmed from personal animosity rather than a protected ground. Additionally, the court dismisses her CAT claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
St. Eve; Sykes, Chief Judge; St. Eve, Circuit Judge; Lee, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
December 23, 2024
Docket number
No. 23-2694
Procedural posture
Petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief.
Standard of review
Legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence and are reversed only when the evidence compels a different result. Because the Board adopted the Immigration Judge's view and affirmed with additional analysis, the court reviewed both opinions.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion
Parties
Eulalia Mateo-Mateo, Mateo-Mateo's two minor children v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Disposition
denied

Topics

asylumremoval proceedingsappellate procedurestandard of reviewimmigration

Practice areas

ImmigrationAdministrative LawAppellate Procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Mateo-Mateo's asylum, humanitarian-asylum, and withholding-of-removal claims could succeed when she did not challenge the agency's independent finding that the Guatemalan government was not unable or unwilling to protect her.
  2. Whether substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that Mateo-Mateo was not harmed on account of a protected ground.
  3. Whether Mateo-Mateo exhausted administrative remedies for her CAT claim by challenging neither the Board's waiver finding nor the merits of the CAT claim before the Board.

Holdings

  1. The petition for review of the asylum, humanitarian-asylum, and withholding-of-removal claims must be denied because Mateo-Mateo failed to challenge the agency's independent and dispositive finding that the Guatemalan government was not unable or unwilling to protect her.
  2. Substantial evidence supported the Immigration Judge's and Board's finding that personal animosity, rather than Mateo-Mateo's membership in a protected social group, motivated Lucinda Juarez's abuse.
  3. Mateo-Mateo failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her CAT claim because she did not challenge the Board's finding that the claim was waived and had not presented her CAT arguments to the Board.

Key quotations

We deny the petition for review. (124 F.4th at 470)
Mateo’s final claim for CAT relief fails on exhaustion grounds. (124 F.4th at 470)

Factual background

Mateo-Mateo, a Guatemalan citizen, was physically and verbally abused by Lucinda Juarez, the mother of the father of Mateo-Mateo's children. The abuse included threats, frequent beatings, and assaults intended to cause a miscarriage; it ended after Mateo-Mateo moved out of Juarez's home, although verbal abuse and later threats continued. Mateo-Mateo eventually left Guatemala with her children and sought asylum-based and CAT relief in the United States.

Procedural history

After Mateo-Mateo and her children were placed in removal proceedings, they conceded removability. Mateo-Mateo applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, naming her children as derivative asylum applicants. The Immigration Judge denied all requested relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding no clear error regarding the absence of a nexus to a protected ground and the government's ability or willingness to protect her, and deeming the CAT claim waived. The Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…