Fourth Circuit Court April 2020 Lopez Ordonez v. Barr

NEXUS & INFANTICIDE

## Fourth Circuit Court

Case: Case: Lopez Ordonez v. Barr, No. 18-2469 Cir. 2020) Date: April 16, 2020 Judges: Gregory, Wilkinson, Wynn Opinion: Chief Judge Gregory

Tags: Immigration, asylum, withholding, CAT, Guatemalan military, nexus, political opinion, infanticide

Question(s) Presented: Presented: Did BIA err in finding no nexus between persecution and political opinion?

Holdings: Remanded to BIA to reconsider asylum, withholding, or (if needed) CAT claims because there is a clear nexus between the persecution Petitioner suffered and his political opinion.

Rationale: The members of the Guatemalan military who beat, tortured, and imprisoned him did so with escalating violence when Petitioner threatened to report their actions to human rights groups.

Facts: Lopez Ordonez was conscripted into the Guatemalan military and forced to help carry out kidnappings for the torture and murder of left-wing guerrillas in the ‘80s and ‘90s. He was afraid to leave his position because of threats to his family, but he steadfastly refused to assist with killing anyone. On one mission that involved the beheading of men, women, and children in a village, he refused orders to kill a five-month-old baby and threatened to expose their actions to human rights groups. The soldiers who were with him began beating him with the baby until the baby was dead. They then beat Lopez Ordonez, and afterwards confined him “in a hole in the ground” for ten months. He escaped to the U.S. in 1997 and received an NTA in 2014.

## Legal History, Prior Appeals & Trial Court Input:

- • Receives NTA. Filed for asylum but conceded that he’s way past the one-year deadline. • Receives NTA. Filed for asylum but conceded that he’s way past the one-year deadline.
- • Found credible testimony for withholding of removal, but no nexus between persecution and • Found credible testimony for withholding of removal, but no nexus between persecution and political opinion. Said they persecuted him because he disobeyed orders, not because he expressed a political opinion. Not enough evidence for CAT claim.
- • Affirmed. Also found that he was eligible to apply for asylum (?). • Affirmed. Also found that he was eligible to apply for asylum (?).
- • Jan. 28, 2020: Circuit Appeal • Jan. 28, 2020: Circuit Appeal

## Appeals to Statute & Precedent:

- • Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451, 455 Cir. 2018): Protected grounds; there must be nexus as • Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451, 455 Cir. 2018): Protected grounds; there must be nexus as at least one central reason for the persecution.
- • Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 127-28 Cir. 2011): A persecutor’s motives are a • Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 127-28 Cir. 2011): A persecutor’s motives are a question of fact on review.
- • Tairou v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 702, 707 Cir. 2018): Eligibility for asylum or withholding can be • Tairou v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 702, 707 Cir. 2018): Eligibility for asylum or withholding can be established by showing past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution.
- • Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 250 Cir. 2019): Protected ground was or will be a central • Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 250 Cir. 2019): Protected ground was or will be a central reason for persecution, even if combined with other reasons. Must demonstrate in some way “the persecutor’s subjective perception of the victim’s views.” (at 254)