Case Summary
**Case Summary: Gomez Lucero v. Mukasey, Docket No. 7852981**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date:** The case was decided in 2008.
**Background:**
The appellant, Gomez Lucero, is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection. Lucero was placed in removal proceedings due to this unlawful entry. During the proceedings, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting fear of persecution based on his political opinions and membership in a particular social group.
**Arguments:**
Lucero contended that he faced a credible fear of persecution if returned to Mexico, primarily due to threats from drug cartels and a lack of protection from the Mexican government. He argued that his fear was based on his perceived political opinions against these criminal organizations. Furthermore, he claimed that he was part of a particular social group due to his experiences and the threats against him.
The immigration judge (IJ) denied his applications, finding that Lucero did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or that he could not safely relocate within Mexico. Lucero appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld the IJ's ruling.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the BIA and IJ erred in their determination that Lucero did not establish a credible fear of persecution.
2. Whether Lucero was entitled to relief under the CAT.
**Decision:**
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the BIA's decision. The court found that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Lucero had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground. The court reasoned that Lucero's fears were too generalized and did not meet the standard for asylum eligibility.
Regarding CAT relief, the Court found no credible evidence that Lucero would likely face torture upon returning to Mexico, as the danger posed by drug cartels, while serious, was not sufficiently tied to governmental action or inaction that could constitute torture.
**Conclusion:**
The appeal by Gomez Lucero was denied, affirming the decisions of the IJ and BIA. The Court determined that Lucero failed to meet the burden of proof required for asylum and CAT relief, and thus, he was subject to removal from the United States.
**Significance:**
This case highlights the complexities involved in asylum claims related to non-state actors and the standards of evidence required to establish a credible fear of persecution. It underscores the challenges individuals face in proving their claims in the context of political and social turmoil in their home countries.