Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch, Dec. 17, 2015 - "If the Mexican government could be expected to protect the petitioner from the Zetas should he be returned to Mexico, the risk that he would be tortured or killed might be too slight to entitle him to deferral of removal. But the legal team representing our government in this case presented no evidence of this — indeed, it presented no evidence at all. And though the immigration judge remarked that the Mexican government was trying to control the drug gangs, it is success rather than effort that bears on the likelihood of the petitioner’s being killed or tortured if removed to Mexico. And finally the government made no effort to refute the expert’s testimony that the petitioner could not relocate to a safe part of Mexico — that no part is safe for him — a proposition that neither the immigration judge nor the BIA member challenged. For all the reasons we have given, we grant the petition for review and remand the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Audio of oral argument here.
[Hats waaaaaay off to Carla I. Espinoza!]