MARIA PICASA HERNANDEZ, AKA Maria Picaso Hernandez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA PICASA HERNANDEZ, AKA
Maria Picaso Hernandez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73911
Agency No. A079-794-556
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 2, 2017
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and LAMBERTH,** District Judge.
Petitioner Maria Picasa Hernandez (“Picasa Hernandez”), a citizen and
native of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision denying her claims for withholding of removal and protection
FILED
OCT 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge for
the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 5 --

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition and remand
for further proceedings.
We review “the [BIA’s] legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings
for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059
(9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (internal citation omitted).
1. In rejecting Picasa Hernandez’s claim for withholding of removal, the BIA
erred as a matter of law when it concluded that she could safely and reasonably
relocate within Mexico.1 The governing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3), sets
forth the factors that adjudicators “should consider” when assessing whether
internal relocation would be reasonable, including “geographical limitations[] and
social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial
ties.” We have held that under section 1208.16(b)(3) adjudicators must consider
the listed factors and decide their relative weight and relevance before making a
determination on internal relocation. See, e.g., Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924,
935-36 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding because it was unclear “whether the BIA
1 The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Picasa Hernandez and her half-
brother credible. The BIA assumed that Picasa Hernandez had “demonstrated past
persecution.” Therefore, on her claim for withholding Picasa Hernandez is entitled
to a presumption of future persecution under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b), and the
government bears the burden of establishing that Picasa Hernandez can safely and
reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid future harm. See Afriyie v. Holder, 613
F.3d 924, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2010).
2

-- 2 of 5 --

considered the requisite regulatory factors pertinent to the reasonableness analysis”
for Afriyie’s withholding and asylum claims). The BIA failed to consider all of the
regulatory factors when it concluded that Picasa Hernandez could safely and
reasonably relocate in Mexico. In particular, the BIA overlooked Picasa
Hernandez’s age, gender, social and familial ties, and economic circumstances.
Picasa Hernandez was 55 years old when she appealed to the BIA. She is
now 59 years old. She has received only one year of primary school education.
Her sole property is located in Achimaro, Mexico. The Sanchez brothers live
adjacent to her property and have attacked Picasa Hernandez and her family on
multiple occasions for trying to protect the property. Even though her cousin-in-
law has been able to tend to the land, the record indicates that Picasa Hernandez
may not be able to do the same. The Sanchez brothers, who are affiliated with Los
Zetas, a transnational drug-trafficking cartel, murdered her cousin in 2008 for
defending the family cattle, which suggests Picasa Hernandez would be similarly
limited in her ability to control and maintain the property. Additionally, unlike her
cousin-in-law, Picasa Hernandez reported the Sanchez brothers to the mayor and
was threatened and physically assaulted as a result. Armed with a rifle, the
Sanchez brothers attacked Picasa Hernandez and told her that they would murder
her and her young children. Even after Picasa Hernandez fled to the United States
3

-- 3 of 5 --

in 2002, the brothers have continued to threaten her by phone. The record
evidence demonstrates, as Picasa Hernandez asserts, that the Sanchez brothers have
“single[d] her out.” Picasa Hernandez has no immediate family left in Mexico and
no real home to which to return.2
The BIA failed to assess any of these factors in its decision, contravening
both the governing regulation and legal precedent.3 Thus, we grant Picasa
Hernandez’s petition for withholding of removal, and remand for the BIA to
consider “the correct factors in its relocation analysis.” Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 936.
Because the BIA “assumed past persecution,” it may also consider on remand
whether Picasa Hernandez has “demonstrate[d] past persecution for the purpose of
withholding of removal.” Id. at 937.
2 We note that after the Sanchez brothers murdered Picasa Hernandez’s
brother-in-law, her husband fled to Mexico City. After only a year, he was forced
to relocate to the United States when he discovered that the Sanchez brothers were
looking for him in Mexico City. The mere existence of a “post-threat harmless
period” is insufficient to establish safe and reasonable relocation. Cardenas v.
I.N.S., 294 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2002). This is particularly true where, as
here, the persecutors have continued to track their victims.
3 Knezevic v. Ashcroft provides a helpful framework for assessing the
internal relocation factors. 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To expect the
[petitioners] to start their lives over again in a new town, with no property, no
home, no family, and no means of earning a living is not only unreasonable, but
exceptionally harsh”).
4

-- 4 of 5 --

2. The BIA similarly erred as a matter of law when it denied Picasa
Hernandez’s CAT claim solely on the basis of internal relocation. The governing
regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3), requires adjudicators to evaluate several
factors when an applicant has applied for CAT protection, including past torture,
internal relocation, evidence of “gross, flagrant or mass violations of human
rights,” and other relevant information about country conditions. We held in
Maldonado v. Lynch that “[i]n deciding whether the applicant has satisfied his or
her burden, the IJ must consider all relevant evidence, including but not limited to
the possibility of relocation within the country of removal.” 786 F.3d 1155, 1164
(9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (emphasis added). Under the regulation, “no one [CAT]
factor is determinative.” Id. Even if the BIA correctly determinated that Picasa
Hernandez could safely relocate, it was error for the agency to end its inquiry there.
Because the BIA issued its decision two years before Maldonado, it did not
have the benefit of our opinion. We therefore grant Picasa Hernandez’s petition as
to her CAT claim, and remand to the agency for further consideration in light of
our decision in Maldonado. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 364 (9th
Cir. 2017).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --