FLORIBERTO MIGUEL-LOPEZ V. TODD BLANCHE

Background Floriberto Miguel Lopez petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He argued that he faced harm connected to a proposed particular social group, challenged the denial of CAT relief, raised a due process claim based on technical glitches at the removal hearing, and argued that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction because the notice to appear omitted the hearing date and time. The court’s reasoning The court reviewed the Board’s decision and the portions of the immigration judge’s decision on which the Board relied, applying de novo review to legal questions and substantial-evidence review to factual findings. On asylum and withholding, the court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that Miguel Lopez failed to establish the required nexus between past or feared future harm and a protected ground. The court said the record did not compel a finding that he was targeted because of his proposed particular social group, and it agreed with the agency that the feared harm related to general lawlessness and cartel criminal activity rather than protected-ground persecution. Because the lack of nexus was dispositive, the court did not need to address whether the asylum application was untimely. On CAT, the court held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Miguel Lopez failed to show future harm would occur by or with the consent or acquiescence of a government official. The court said generalized country-conditions evidence showing the Mexican government’s ineffectiveness against cartels was insufficient. On due process, the court acknowledged technical glitches but held that Miguel Lopez did not show prejudice affecting the outcome. On the notice-to-appear argument, the court held that any failure by the Board to address the motion to terminate was harmless because Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses a jurisdictional challenge based on omission of date and time information, and Miguel Lopez also failed to show prejudice. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Miguel Lopez failed to establish a nexus between his past or feared future mistreatment and his proposed particular social group of “Indigenous Mexican men with children living in rural areas, who oppose violent cartels.” What it means going forward The petition for review was denied, leaving in place the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The decision also reinforces that generalized cartel violence, generalized government ineffectiveness, hearing glitches without prejudice, and jurisdiction-only challenges to defective notices to appear will not by themselves secure relief in this circuit.