URIBE ANDRADE V. GARLAND, No. 21-1244 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
In this case, the petitioner, Miguel Angel Uribe Andrade, sought a review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision dismissing an appeal of the Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Uribe proposed the social group, “Mexicans with mental health disorders characterized by psychotic features who exhibit erratic behavior,” as the basis for his asylum and withholding claims.
However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Uribe’s petition, ruling that the BIA did not commit legal error in finding that Uribe’s proposed social group lacked particularity. The court stated that the term "erratic behavior" was not defined in the record and was not used by Uribe’s treatment providers in describing his conditions or symptoms. Therefore, the BIA could conclude that "erratic behavior" did not provide a clear indication of who might be in the proposed group.
The court also found that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of CAT protection. Uribe had not shown that it was more likely than not that he would be institutionalized in Mexico and tortured. Even if Uribe were committed to a mental health institution, the poor conditions in Mexico’s mental health facilities were not created with the intent to inflict suffering. Furthermore, Uribe’s claim that he would be tortured due to his former gang membership and tattoos was also speculative.
Court Description: Immigration The panel denied Miguel Angel Uribe Andrade’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of an appeal of the denial of asylum and related relief, concluding that the Board did not commit legal error in finding that Uribe’s proposed social group lacked particularity, and that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief.
Although Uribe was removable based on a criminal offense covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), the panel concluded that this provision did not deprive it of jurisdiction to review Uribe’s asylum and withholding claims, because Uribe did not challenge the factual findings underlying the agency’s rejection of his proposed social group, and pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), the court retained jurisdiction to review Uribe’s legal arguments concerning that determination.
The panel concluded that the Board did not err in determining that Uribe’s proposed social group, “Mexicans with mental health disorders characterized by psychotic features who exhibit erratic behavior,” was not cognizable because it lacked particularity. The panel noted that Uribe did not challenge the agency’s factual finding that the term “erratic behavior” was not defined in the record and was not used by Uribe’s treatment providers in describing his conditions or symptoms. Additionally, nothing inherent in the phrase “erratic behavior” required the Board to treat it as a self-defining term, much less to supply a lay definition. The Board could therefore conclude that “erratic behavior” did not provide firm enough indication of who might be in the proposed group given that the phrase may cover a range of conduct that varies in frequency, duration, and character.
The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s denial of CAT protection. As to Uribe’s first theory—that he will be tortured in a Mexican mental health facility—the panel concluded that the record did not compel the conclusion that Uribe will be unable to obtain his medication or other treatment in Mexico. Thus, the Board reasonably concluded that Uribe was not more likely than not to be committed to a mental health institution. Substantial evidence also supported the Board’s determination that, even if Uribe were committed to a mental health institution, he would not likely be tortured because the poor conditions in Mexico’s mental health facilities are not created with the requisite specific intent to inflict suffering. As to Uribe’s fear of being tortured on account of his former gang membership and tattoos, the panel concluded that evidence of widespread cartel violence in Mexico did not show that Uribe’s past or perceived gang affiliation would make him particularly vulnerable to such violence. Nor did the record compel the conclusion that Mexican officials would acquiesce to Uribe’s torture.
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.