Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cazares-Sandoval v. Holder
Citation: 330 F. App'x 146Docket: No. 05-71654
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 3, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Martin Cazares Sandoval, Alicia Tamayo, and their daughter, Flor Maryssa Cazares Tamayo, citizens of Mexico, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge's (IJ) decision that denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The petition also included Alicia Tamayo’s request for cancellation of removal. Jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The review of the IJ’s findings is governed by substantial evidence, particularly regarding Alicia Tamayo's continuous physical presence and Cazares Sandoval's asylum claim. The IJ found that Alicia Tamayo did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement due to her departure from the U.S. from early March to late June 1989, exceeding the permissible absence of 90 days as stipulated in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2). Her argument that this statute violates equal protection was rejected, as line-drawing in immigration law must align with legitimate governmental purposes. Cazares Sandoval's claim for asylum was denied based on a lack of evidence for past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution related to his political beliefs. The IJ determined that a shot fired at his home by unknown individuals did not demonstrate a connection to his political activities. This conclusion aligns with the precedent set in Sangha v. INS, which emphasizes the necessity of establishing a direct link between claimed persecution and political opinion. The petition for review is denied, and the decision is not intended for publication nor serves as precedent, in accordance with 9th Cir. R. 36-3.