Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sanchez-Cabrera v. Ashcroft
Citation: 96 F. App'x 511Docket: No. 02-73716; Agency Nos. A79-147-121, A79-147-129
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 27, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Jorge Alehandro Sanehez-Cabrera and Modesta Robledo-Lopez, Mexican citizens, petitioned for review of a final order of removal from the United States issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which was affirmed summarily. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and denies their petitions after reviewing the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision under the substantial evidence standard. Although the IJ found petitioners' testimony credible, they denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, noting a lack of evidence linking the threats they faced to government actions or protected classifications. The IJ determined that the threats were likely from common criminals rather than police officers, as the petitioners could not substantiate their belief that the men who threatened them were law enforcement. Sanchez-Cabrera’s testimony suggested that the threats were intended to coerce him into releasing criminals rather than indicating police corruption. Additionally, the IJ highlighted that the petitioners did not report the threats adequately and that the supervisor's lack of response did not equate to government complicity in the threats. The IJ found that the petitioners were ineligible for asylum, which also affected their eligibility for withholding of deportation. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the petitioners cited U.S. State Department reports but failed to show that the government would tolerate torture against police officers who resist criminal elements. Overall, the court concluded that the evidence did not support a claim of official persecution or the likelihood of torture upon return to Mexico. Petitioners contest the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision to streamline their case, arguing that the Immigration Judge (IJ) overlooked parts of Sanchez-Cabrera’s testimony and reached an erroneous conclusion. They assert that any errors made by the IJ were not harmless, as returning them to Mexico would pose a risk. However, these claims are unconvincing. The IJ’s decision is deemed correct, with no identified errors that would alter the outcome. Petitioners do not specify what evidence they believe was overlooked or provide legal authority mandating the IJ to reference particular data. They also fail to demonstrate how the outcome would change if the IJ had cited the information. Even if the IJ’s findings were flawed, they assert that such errors were harmless. The petitioners misunderstand the definition of 'harmless' in this context, as their interpretation would imply that no error could ever be considered harmless. The IJ’s findings are supported by evidence, and petitioners have not shown that the record necessitates a different conclusion or that the streamlining was inappropriate. Consequently, the petitions are denied. This decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit, except per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.