Ortega v. Garland, No. 21-3253 (7th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Israel Juan Miguel Urzua Ortega, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for a review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his request for withholding of removal. Ortega had illegally reentered the United States and his prior order of removal was reinstated. However, he sought withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that he would face persecution in Mexico from individuals the Mexican government would not control.
Ortega, who spent most of his life in Mexico City, faced multiple threats and attacks, including murder threats from his father's cousin, Tacho, a member of the Sinaloa cartel. He claimed that even while in the U.S., he continued receiving threats. Ortega was arrested in 2021 for driving on a revoked license, and his 2006 removal order was reinstated. He claimed a fear of returning to Mexico, but his claim was denied by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, who found him ineligible for withholding of removal.
The court reviewed both the decisions of the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court applied a highly deferential standard of review and concluded that substantial evidence supported the decisions that Ortega failed to establish that he would be persecuted by groups or individuals that the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to control. The court noted that the Mexican government had been responsive to the prior threats against Ortega, that Tacho was incarcerated in Mexico, and that Ortega had continued to receive threats even while living in the United States. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-3253 ISRAEL JUAN M. URZUA ORTEGA Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A099-025-449 ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2022— DECIDED MARCH 29, 2024 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, KIRSCH, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Israel Juan Miguel Urzua Ortega, a native and citizen of Mexico, illegally reentered the United States, and his prior order of removal was reinstated. Ortega sought withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found Ortega 2 No. 21-3253 ineligible for withholding of removal. Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ortega failed to establish that he would be persecuted by individuals whom the Mexican government would be unable or unwilling to control, we deny the petition. I Israel Juan Miguel Urzua Ortega is a native and citizen of Mexico and has spent most of his life in Mexico City. Ortega and his family have experienced multiple attacks and threats of violence. When Ortega was young, his father was murdered. While the perpetrators were charged and sentenced, Ortega later learned that the murder was ordered by his father’s cousin, Tacho, who is a member of the Sinaloa cartel. When Ortega was a teenager and serving in the military, someone—who Ortega believes was sent by Tacho—verbally threatened to kill him and shot him in the leg. Ortega told his military general, who sent a captain-led escort to investigate the shooting, but the shooter had ed. After Ortega left the military to work in security as an armored truck driver, he began receiving threatening messages on his beeper device, but he did not tell anyone about the threats. Ortega then changed jobs and started working as a re ghter, and he again received threatening messages. He informed the re ghter general, who agreed to transfer him to a di erent station. But he continued receiving similar messages and had to be transferred to a third station. When leaving the third station one day, Ortega was followed by individuals in a vehicle, but he outmaneuvered them and called the police from a gas station. The police arrived, but Ortega did not le a police report. The next day, Ortega was again followed by individuals in a vehicle, one of whom pointed a gun No. 21-3253 3 at him. He was once more able to outmaneuver the car, and he called police detectives. The detectives assisted him right away and recommended that he le a report with the prosecutor’s o ce, which he did. Soon after, in 2002, Ortega quit his job and came to the United States without authorization. He returned to Mexico in 2006 after his mother informed him that Tacho was threatening his son. While trying to reenter the United States via airplane using a fake visa, Ortega was discovered and ordered removed. But he eventually reentered the United States without authorization on foot at the land border. Even while residing in the United States, Ortega continued receiving numerous threatening messages and phone calls, which he suspects were from individuals associated with Tacho. In 2021, Ortega was arrested for driving on a revoked license, and the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his 2006 removal order. Ortega claimed a fear of returning to Mexico, but the asylum o cer determined that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. An immigration judge vacated the decision, and withholding proceedings followed. After holding a hearing, the IJ denied Ortega’s withholding application, nding that he “failed to establish that he would be persecuted by the government or groups or individuals that the government is unwilling or unable to control if he returns to Mexico.” In so holding, the IJ noted that the Mexican government was exceptionally responsive to the prior threats against Ortega and his family, Tacho was incarcerated in Mexico, and Ortega had continued to receive 4 No. 21-3253 threats even while living in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and a rmed the IJ’s decision. II “Where, as here, the BIA’s decision adopts and a rms the IJ’s conclusion as well as provides its own analysis, we review both decisions.” Guzman-Garcia v. Garland, 996 F.3d 480, 483 (7th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). Legal questions are reviewed de novo, and ndings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. We will a rm so long as the agency’s decision “is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.” Lozano-Zuniga v. Lynch, 832 F.3d 822, 826 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). This standard is “extremely deferential,” and we will reverse “only if the facts compel the opposite conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted). To qualify for withholding of removal, Ortega may show that he would be persecuted in Mexico because of his membership in a particular social group, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), which here is his membership in the Urzua Ortega family. See Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr, 922 F.3d 346, 353 (7th Cir. 2019) (“We and other circuits have recognized that membership in a nuclear family can satisfy the social group requirement.”) (citations omitted). The feared persecution “must be attributable to the government or to a nongovernmental entity that the government is unable or unwilling to control.” Cruz-Martinez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 460, 463 (7th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). Actions of private citizens—such as Tacho—do not su ce “unless the government is complicit in those acts or is unable or unwilling to take steps to prevent them.” Halim v. Holder, 755 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted); see also Hor v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 497, 502 (7th Cir. 2005) (granting a petition for review because the Algerian government was unable No. 21-3253 5 to protect the petitioner); Rosales Justo v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 154, 163 (1st Cir. 2018) (“[U]nwillingness and inability are distinct issues, and [] an applicant may be able to prove inability without proving unwillingness where the government’s willing e orts to protect its citizens fall short.”). Ortega argues that the IJ’s decision, as a rmed by the BIA, was not supported by substantial evidence because it failed to consider current conditions in Mexico and changes to his personal circumstances. Regarding current country conditions, Ortega claims that the BIA should have reviewed the IJ’s decision de novo because the IJ ignored this evidence and thus committed legal error. But, as the BIA correctly found, the IJ’s decision explicitly referred to country conditions evidence, including the high rate of crime that goes unresolved and unpunished and the widespread corruption within the Mexican government. The BIA therefore properly reviewed the IJ’s determination on country conditions evidence for clear error, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), and the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Importantly, “generalized conditions a ecting large segments of a population do not, by themselves, prove that [Ortega] faces persecution” and thus have “no signi cance” unless he can establish that he “is likely to be singled out for persecution.” Raghunathan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 371, 378 (7th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Turning to Ortega’s personal circumstances, he argues that the Mexican government is less likely to protect him because he is no longer employed by a Mexican government entity and has not been since 2002. This is mere speculation, and we are allowed to rely on the government’s past actions when assessing the risk of future persecution. See, e.g., HernandezBaena v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 720, 724 (7th Cir. 2005) ( nding that 6 No. 21-3253 substantial evidence supported the IJ’s “conclusion that petitioners’ fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable” where the police previously “responded immediately” to death threats). There is substantial evidence that Mexican authorities were willing to protect Ortega in the past. An escort was sent to investigate when Ortega was shot in the leg; Ortega was allowed to transfer re stations twice after he received threatening messages; the police arrived the rst time Ortega was followed by a vehicle (though he did not proceed with a police report); and when Ortega was again followed the next day, detectives helped him right away and recommended that he le a report with the prosecutor’s o ce. There is also substantial evidence that Mexican authorities are able to protect Ortega and his family. O cials previously charged and sentenced the individuals who murdered Ortega’s father. Further, Tacho is currently in prison, which undermines Ortega’s concern that the Mexican government is unable to control him. Under our highly deferential standard of review, we nd that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision, as af rmed by the BIA, that Ortega failed to establish that Mexico would be unable or unwilling to protect him. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. DENIED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
