A Mexican citizen who came to the United States on a short seventy-two hour visa in 2000 has been repeatedly denied asylum in this country for both procedural defects in his application and because his case does not establish the substantive grounds for asylum. He failed to take any action to seek asylum in the United States until 2009 when the government commenced removal proceedings against him. At that juncture, he admitted that he was subject to removal but concurrently applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge (IJ) ruled that his asylum request was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) which requires an asylum application to be filed within one year after arrival in the United States.
But that same judge also found that the petition also failed because he had not established eligibility for asylum. The petitioner, Mr. Jose Canales-Enrique, had claimed that he was entitled to asylum because his brother, Miguel, was a sheriff in a part of Mexico which drug cartels exerted great influence and that his relationship with his brother would endanger his life if he returned. The Immigration Judge found no evidence that Petitioner or his wife and children had ever been threatened or harmed, or were even known by any criminal organization in Mexico. The only evidence presented suggested that the only members of Miguel's family who had been threatened were Miguel's wife and children. Under such circumstances, he failed to show he was part of a “social group” that could qualify for asylum.
The decision that he failed to show he possessed a reasonable fear of persecution was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA also agreed that he did not establish that he would be tortured if he returned to Mexico so the claim under the CAT was not viable either. Mr. Canales-Enrique moved the BIA for reconsideration of their decision but such was denied. Now the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his appeal to overturn the BIA’s decisions in Canales-Enrique v. Holder, No. 13-9554. (10th Cir. Ct. App. 2014). The Tenth Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the procedural circumstances of this case to review the decisions of the lower tribunals.
This case underscores the imperative need to pursue asylum cases in a timely fashion. Those who believe they may be potentially subject to removal because they fear persecution if they are sent back to their native country should not hesitate to consult an immigration attorney experienced in the area of asylum law.
The Shulman Law Group, LLC has successfully handled and effectuated many asylum cases. The firm and its staff are well-versed in the nuances and underpinnings of claims of persecution involving individuals from many countries. What sets our firm apart from other law offices is that we skillfully prepare comprehensive applications that include country reports, autobiographical statements, affidavits from friends, family and colleagues, psychological evaluations, and expert witness testimonials--strategies that predispose the applicant to a higher probability of an approval. Our firm maintains an up-to-date knowledge on the latest case law which affects the manner in which these cases are reviewed.