United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3269 ___________________________ Victor Perez-Rodriguez lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 18, 2019 Filed: March 9, 2020 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ SMITH, Chief Judge. Victor Perez-Rodriguez entered the United States from Mexico at an unknown date and was eventually detained. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to remove him. He does not contest his removability. Instead, he seeks asylum, claiming he belongs to a particular social group. This group consists of “individuals with schizophrenia who exhibit erratic behavior” (“the group”). This petition for review turns on whether Mexico’s government persecutes individuals because they belong to that group. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Perez-Rodriguez’s asylum request because it found no connection between the alleged persecution and the group. Applying a substantial evidence standard, we conclude that the record is not so substantial “that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that” Mexico’s government targets individuals on account of group membership. Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 869 (8th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). Consequently, we deny the petition. I. Background After an immigration judge (IJ) sustained a charge of removability, Perez-Rodriguez submitted an asylum application. To support his application, Perez-Rodriguez introduced evidence regarding conditions in Mexico’s mental-health facilities. The parties agree that those conditions are markedly substandard. Patients are referred to as the abandanodos—the abandoned ones. According to uncontested evidence, individuals are often bound, sometimes for extended periods, to prevent self harm. Others are left in isolation. Some patients were observed sitting in their own bodily wastes. Further, the record contains stories of patients suffering rape and abuse at the hands of medical personnel. The Mexican government has long been aware of these conditions. Perez-Rodriguez argues that the Mexican government allows those conditions to persist “because it believes its methods are consistent with the [population’s] view of the mentally ill.” Pet’r’s Br. at 29. The IJ granted Perez-Rodriguez’s asylum request. The BIA reversed, concluding that Perez-Rodriguez had failed to show (1) that his fear of persecution met the standard of objective reasonableness because family members could provide -2- him care and (2) that he would be institutionalized if returned. On remand, the IJ determined that Perez-Rodriguez’s evidence established that the Mexican government would place him in a mental-health institution. Further, she found that the conditions within those institutions constituted government persecution. The IJ then went on to discuss the physical restraints used with many of the patients. She noted that mental-health workers were motivated by a desire to overcome the patients’ erratic behavior—one of the group’s defining characteristics. Thus, the IJ again granted Perez-Rodriguez’s asylum request. The BIA found that the IJ clearly erred in finding that Perez-Rodriguez “would be subjected to persecutory harm on account of his particular social group membership if detained in a mental health facility.” Pet’r’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals