Case Summary
**Case Summary: Hortencia Rivera Tovar v. Loretta E. Lynch**
**Docket Number:** 3071691
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Citation:** 2016 WL 1613520
**Date Decided:** August 24, 2016
**Background:**
Hortencia Rivera Tovar, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in her removal proceedings. Tovar was ordered removed by an immigration judge (IJ) due to her failure to establish her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Tovar claimed a fear of persecution based on her political opinion, alleging that she would be targeted by drug cartels in Mexico due to her opposition to organized crime.
**Issues:**
The central issue in the case was whether Tovar had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on her political opinion, sufficient to warrant relief from removal. Additionally, the case addressed whether the IJ and the BIA properly evaluated the evidence presented by Tovar regarding the risk of persecution she faced in Mexico.
**Decision:**
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the BIA, affirming that Tovar did not demonstrate a credible fear of persecution. The court found that while Tovar provided testimony regarding her political beliefs and the general climate of violence in Mexico, she failed to substantiate her claims with credible evidence indicating that the drug cartels specifically targeted her for persecution.
The court noted that the mere presence of violence and crime in Mexico was insufficient to establish a personal risk of persecution for an individual. Furthermore, the IJ had properly weighed the evidence, including Tovar's testimony and country conditions reports, concluding that Tovar had not met the burden of proof required for asylum.
**Conclusion:**
The Ninth Circuit determined that the BIA's decision was not arbitrary or capricious and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Tovar lacked a well-founded fear of persecution. Thus, the court denied her petition for review and upheld the removal order.
**Significance:**
This case emphasizes the high burden of proof required for asylum seekers to demonstrate their eligibility based on a fear of persecution. It also highlights the necessity for credible evidence linking an individual's circumstances to the claimed risk of harm in their home country.