Ramirez v. Sessions, No. 17-1414 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseDHS detained Ramirez, a citizen of Guatemala, in 2014, after she illegally entered the U.S. Ramirez stated she feared a neighbor would kill her if she returned to Guatemala because he frequently asked her to have sex, and she refused; she reported this neighbor to the police after he attempted to rape another woman, but the police did not arrest him. Ramirez said this neighbor sent men to confront her at knifepoint, demanding money and threatening to kill her. Ramirez submitted her asylum application (completed with the help of an attorney) and represented herself pro se. The IJ denied the application, stating Ramirez feared a “personal and a potential criminal act,” not “persecution” or “torture” necessary for securing asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture relief. The written decision concluded that Ramirez failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The decision repeatedly, erroneously, referred to Mexico and its caption charged Ramirez under the wrong statutory section. The BIA found “harmless error.” Ramirez argued the IJ’s hearing conduct violated procedural due process, failing to provide individualized consideration. The Eighth Circuit denied relief. The IJ gave Ramirez declined repeated opportunities to expound on her claim; on appeal, Ramirez failed to explain the evidence she might have offered had the IJ asked further questions. The BIA's order disavowed any errors and exercised the requisite independent judgment supported by substantial evidence.
Court Description: Grasz, Author, with Benton and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The IJ's questioning of the petitioner did not fail to explore relevant facts, did not curtail her testimony and did not prevent her from telling her whole story; the hearing did not, therefore, deny her due process of law; the IJ's reliance on inaccurate boilerplate in the written decision, while troubling, did not reveal a failure to provide an individualized evaluation of petitioner's claims; the BIA did not blindly defer to the IJ's decision or simply rubber-stamp the IJ's errors but, instead, based its conclusions in the case on independent judgment and substantial evidence; BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen or reconsider as the motion largely elaborated on the same issues raised in petitioner's direct appeal to the Board and did contain any new evidentiary material.
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.