Saldana v. Lynch, No. 15-1226 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner and his wife and kids seek review of the BIA's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners contend that members of the Matazetas gang in Mexico will persecute them if they are returned to Mexico. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision based on alternative grounds concerning whether petitioners established a well-founded fear of “persecution” within the meaning of the asylum statute. The evidence supports the Board's conclusion that internal relocation was reasonable and could avoid persecution of petitioners. That police in Veracruz could not solve a crime committed by masked men and reported well after the fact does not dictate a finding that the government is unable to control persecution by the gang. Nor does the decision of police in the state of Puebla compel a finding of unwillingness or inability to control. Likewise, petitioners are not eligible for withholding of removal and substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum relief is affirmed on the alternative grounds that petitioners failed to show, with respect to their claim of persecution by a private actors, that the government of Mexico either condoned the conduct or was unable to protect the victims; the record showed the police acted on the complaints of home invasion and abduction and continued to investigate the matters; further, the government of Mexico has devoted substantial resources to controlling criminal organizations, such as the Matazeta gang which committed crimes against petitioners' family; the Board's conclusion that it was reasonable for petitioners to relocate within Mexico to avoid a threat of persecution by the Matazetas was supported by the evidence in the record; because the Board permissibly rejected petitioners' claim for asylum, it follows they did not meet the stricter requirements for withholding of removal; denial of CAT relief affirmed. Judge Murphy, dissenting.
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.