Summary
This Seventh Circuit opinion reviews a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The petitioner, a Mexican citizen, claimed fear of cartel violence targeting his family due to their land ownership near a gas pipeline. The court applied a deferential substantial evidence standard and affirmed the denial, finding insufficient evidence linking the violence directly to the petitioner or establishing a clear probability of future persecution or torture. The court also concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that internal relocation within Mexico would be unreasonable.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence compelled a finding that P.A.-V. suffered past persecution on account of his membership in his family.
- Whether substantial evidence compelled a finding that P.A.-V. had a clear probability or reasonable fear of future persecution if removed to Mexico.
- Whether the agency erred in finding that P.A.-V. could reasonably relocate within Mexico.
- Whether P.A.-V. established that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of Mexican public officials, as required for CAT protection.
Holdings
- The record did not compel a finding that P.A.-V. suffered past persecution on account of his membership in his family because he failed to establish a nexus between the violence against his relatives or the restaurant incident and persecution directed at him.
- P.A.-V. failed to establish a reasonable fear or clear probability of future persecution because he did not present specific evidence showing that he was more likely than not to be individually targeted as a member of his family.
- The agency reasonably found that P.A.-V. could relocate within Mexico, and the record did not compel a finding that relocation would be unreasonable.
- P.A.-V. failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection because he did not show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of Mexican public officials.
Key quotations
“Because the record before us does not compel a different conclusion, we deny the petition for review.” (2)
“The standard is extremely deferential, and we will not reverse simply because we would have decided the case differently, but rather only if the facts compel the opposite conclusion.” (5)
“While the violence experienced by P.A.-V.’s family is tragic, the IJ did not err in finding that P.A.-V. failed to present evidence that this violence targeted him.” (7)
“We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under the CAT.” (12)
Factual background
P.A.-V., a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in 1995, was removed twice, and reentered in 1999. He feared cartel violence in Mexico associated with his family's land near an underground gas pipeline, citing a restaurant threat, extortionate calls to his parents, the kidnapping of a cousin and her children, and the killings of several family members. An expert testified about cartel violence and the possibility of relocation, but the immigration judge found that the evidence did not establish that the violence targeted P.A.-V. or that relocation within Mexico was unreasonable.
Procedural history
After the Department of Homeland Security reinstated P.A.-V.'s prior removal order, he sought withholding of removal under INA section 241(b)(3) and protection under the CAT. An asylum officer found that he failed to establish a reasonable fear, but an immigration judge vacated that determination, held an evidentiary hearing, and denied relief under both theories. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review.