Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rina LEMUS MAGANA, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Rina Lemus Magana’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Lemus’ appeal. We have jurisdiction of Lemus’ petition for review of that decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part, grant it in part, and remand.
1. We deny the petition for review as to the denial of Lemus’ asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that any threats did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Lemus did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of membership in a social group of “family members of clergy who speak out against gangs.” See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2). The record does not compel the conclusion that the opposition of either Lemus or her father to gangs was “one central reason” for any feared future persecution. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740–42 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. We also deny the petition with respect to CAT relief. The evidence does not compel a conclusion that it is “more likely than not” Lemus will be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016).
3. We grant the petition with respect to Lemus’ application for withholding of removal. We recently clarified that the nexus requirement for withholding—that a protected ground be “a reason” for persecution—“is less demanding than [the] ‘one central reason’ ” standard applicable to asylum claims. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Both the IJ and the BIA erroneously applied the “one central reason” nexus test in rejecting Lemus’ withholding claim. We therefore remand for evaluation of the withholding claim under the proper legal standard.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. REMANDED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-71229
Decided: May 24, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)