Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca1-15-02570/USCOURTS-ca1-15-02570-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rufino Aguilon-Lopez
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 15-2570 

RUFINO AGUILON-LOPEZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF 

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS 

Before 

Kayatta, Stahl, and Barron, 

Circuit Judges. 

Jason Panzarino and The Law Office of Johanna Herrero on brief 

for petitioner. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, and Stefanie Notarino Hennes, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for 

respondent. 

December 12, 2016 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 2 - 

STAHL, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Rufino Aguilon-Lopez, 

a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals's ("BIA") final order affirming an Immigration 

Judge's ("IJ") decision denying his applications for withholding 

of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention 

Against Torture ("CAT"). Specifically, Aguilon-Lopez asserts that 

he and his family have suffered past persecution in Guatemala and, 

as a result, he holds a well-founded fear of future persecution. 

Aguilon-Lopez also faults the BIA for affirming the dismissal of 

his CAT claim, maintaining that were he to return to his home 

country, it is more likely than not that he would suffer torture 

at the hands of a Guatemalan gang with the acquiescence of the 

Guatemalan government. Based on the record before us, we find the 

IJ decision and BIA order governed by controlling precedent. 

Consequently, we deny his petition. 

I. Facts & Background 

 Aguilon-Lopez illegally entered the United States in 

February 2009. Approximately three and a half years later, after 

a traffic stop that revealed his undocumented status, the 

Department of Homeland Security personally served Aguilon-Lopez 

with a Notice to Appear ("NTA"), charging him with removability as 

an alien present in the United States without being admitted or 

paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(1). 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 3 - 

 In later written pleadings, Aguilon-Lopez admitted to 

the factual allegations contained in the NTA and conceded 

removability. A hearing before an IJ was held on August 28, 2013, 

during which Aguilon-Lopez argued that he was entitled to 

withholding of removal or, alternatively, CAT protection. 

Specifically with respect to his withholding of removal claim, 

Aguilon-Lopez argued that he was a member of a particular social 

group, residents of Guatemala who have been threatened with gang 

violence and recruitment to a gang, and have refused, and that his 

"life or freedom [was] threatened . . . because of [his] . . . 

membership in [this] particular social group . . . ." 8 U.S.C. § 

1231(b)(3)(A). 

Testifying in support of his applications, Aguilon-Lopez 

first explained that on two occasions in the mid-1980's, the 

Guatemalan government had falsely incarcerated his father. The 

second incident, he said, related to the government's mistaken 

belief that his father was affiliated with anti-government 

guerillas. However, Aguilon-Lopez admitted that his father has 

not experienced any problems with the Guatemalan government since 

that time. He also admitted to never personally suffering harm at 

the hands of the Guatemalan government as a result of its 

misunderstanding with his father. 

 Aguilon-Lopez did, however, recount several altercations 

between him, his family, and Guatemalan gang members. On one 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 4 - 

occasion, when he was eight years old, Aguilon-Lopez encountered 

gang members who briefly detained him and demanded he "join them" 

or else he would be "against them." Shortly thereafter, the gangs 

extorted Aguilon-Lopez's uncle for money. When his uncle could 

not afford to make the payments, the gangs retaliated by firing 

guns into his uncle's house. Though no one was injured and his 

family reported the incident to police, "nothing happened." 

 On another occasion, gang members violently robbed a 

group of people, including a then 16-year-old Aguilon-Lopez, at a 

public market.1 Police later arrived at the scene, but by then 

the gang members had fled. Aguilon-Lopez remained in Guatemala 

for approximately three years after the incident, during which 

time he had no further encounters with gang members. 

After hearing this testimony and evaluating the record, 

the IJ denied Aguilon-Lopez's application for relief and judged 

him removable. Despite finding his testimony credible, the IJ 

concluded that Aguilon-Lopez had failed to establish past 

persecution based on a protected ground, finding that his testimony 

recounted only "a series of isolated events, not systemic 

mistreatment" and, alternatively, that "there [was] nothing to 

differentiate members of [his proposed social group] from others 

 1 Aguilon-Lopez also noted that his brother was involved in a 

comparable incident sometime after Aguilon-Lopez arrived in the 

United States. 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 5 - 

in the general populace in Guatemala." The IJ also denied AguilonLopez's CAT claim because he failed to make a required showing 

that Guatemalan authorities would acquiesce to the harm he feared 

from the Guatemalan gangs. 

 Aguilon-Lopez timely filed for review before the BIA on 

September 29, 2014. The BIA declined to address whether AguilonLopez established past persecution, but affirmed the IJ on the 

basis that Aguilon-Lopez had failed to show a nexus to a protected 

ground. The BIA also agreed that Aguilon-Lopez's testimony "[did] 

not suffice to establish" a CAT violation. This petition for 

review followed. 

II. Standard of Review 

"In the immigration context, judicial review usually 

focuses on the BIA's decision." Jianli Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 

17, 21 (1st Cir. 2012). However, where the BIA "adopts portions 

of the IJ's findings while adding its own gloss, we review both 

the IJ's and the BIA's decisions as a unit." Renaut v. Lynch, 791 

F.3d 163, 166 (1st Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

Thus, we review the administrative findings of fact 

under the "'highly deferential' substantial evidence standard, 

under which we uphold [these findings] 'so long as they are 

supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on 

the record considered as a whole.'" Vega-Ayala v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 6 - 

34, 38-39 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 

115, 120 (1st Cir. 2005)). We reverse "only if the record is such 

as to compel a reasonable factfinder to reach a contrary 

determination." Jianli Chen, 703 F.3d at 21. Legal 

determinations, meanwhile, are reviewed de novo, subject to 

appropriate principles of administrative deference. Larios v. 

Holder, 608 F.3d 105, 107 (1st Cir. 2010). 

III. Analysis 

Withholding of removal is available if "the alien's life 

or freedom would be threatened in [their home country] because of 

the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 

1231(b)(3)(A). Aguilon-Lopez bears the burden of establishing his 

eligibility for withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R. § 1209.16(b), 

meaning he must demonstrate (1) a "clear probability" that he was 

or will be persecuted, see INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413 (1984), 

and (2) a nexus between the alleged persecution and one of the 

statutorily protected grounds, see Sompotan v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 

63, 68 (1st Cir. 2008). Since he seeks withholding of removal 

based on his membership in a particular social group, AguilonLopez must establish that his proposed group is "(1) composed of 

members who share a common immutable characteristic; (2) defined 

with particularity; and (3) socially distinct within the society 

in question." Paiz-Morales v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 238, 244 (1st Cir. 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 7 - 

2015) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 

2014)).2

We have no need to analyze the first and third 

requirements because even if Aguilon-Lopez established that he 

shared an immutable characteristic with a distinct social group, 

his argument still fails because his putative social group was not 

defined with particularity.3 This is not the first time this Court 

has encountered, and rejected, the type of social group AguilonLopez presses. See, e.g., Paiz-Morales, 795 F.3d at 242 ("members 

that oppose gang membership" in Guatemala); Mendez-Barrera v. 

Holder, 602 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 2010) ("young women recruited by 

gang members who resist such recruitment" in El Salvador); Larios 

v. Holder, 608 F.3d 105, 108-09 (1st Cir. 2010) ("young Guatemalan 

 2 While the IJ expressly ruled that the harm Aguilon-Lopez 

experienced in Guatemala was not severe enough to constitute past 

persecution or constitute a basis for a well-founded fear of future 

persecution, we, like the BIA, do not reach the issue. As we shall 

explain, his claim fails because, regardless of whether he 

established persecution, he did not establish his membership in a 

particularized social group. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(1) 

(requiring that an applicant show that a protected ground was a 

"central reason" for the persecution); see also Granada-Rubio v. 

Lynch, 814 F.3d 35, 38 (1st Cir. 2016) (holding that an alien who 

alleges persecution on account of membership in a particular social 

group must show "at a bare minimum that []he is a member of a 

legally cognizable social group."). 

3 We agree with the Government that because of this 

requirement, we need not consider Aguilon-Lopez's argument that 

the BIA erred by failing to consider his social group claim under 

a mixed-motive analysis. See Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9, 

18-19 (1st Cir. 2014) (describing the mixed-motive analysis). 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 8 - 

men recruited by gang members who resist such recruitment"); DiazRuano v. Holder, 420 Fed. App'x. 19, 21-22 (1st Cir. 2011) 

(unpublished opinion) ("young male[s] sought out for information 

and recruitment by the criminal gang of Guatemala"). 

After distilling these cases, it is evident why AguilonLopez's proposed social group is not legally cognizable. In terms 

of particularity, Aguilon-Lopez only offers testimony that the 

Guatemalan gangs have a "very evolved system" for finding those 

who are "against them." While we do not doubt that these gangs 

have significant resources at their disposal to achieve such ends, 

the proposed social group remains comprised of people from an 

impermissibly broad variety of ages and backgrounds. See Matter 

of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. at 238-39 ("The 'particularity' requirement 

relates to . . . the need to put 'outer limits' on the definition 

of a 'particular social group' . . . The group must also be discrete 

and have definable boundaries -- it must not be amorphous, 

overbroad, diffuse, or subjective."). 

His proposed social group raises questions about the 

"type of conduct that may be considered 'recruit[ment]' and the 

degree to which a person must display 'resist[ance].'" MendezBarrera, 602 F.3d at 27 (quoting Faye v. Holder, 580 F.3d 37, 42 

(1st Cir. 2009) (alterations in original). These group 

characteristics are highly amorphous, largely subjective, and 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 9 - 

generally inhibit the "accurate separation of members from nonmembers." Ahmed v. Holder, 611 F.3d 90, 94 (1st Cir. 2010). 

Beyond this, Aguilon-Lopez has not established that his 

putative social group is a meaningfully distinct segment of the 

Guatemalan population. Aguilon-Lopez was required to show that 

the proposed group is "generally recognized in the community as a 

cohesive group." Mendez-Barrera, 602 F.3d at 26. Like others 

before him, Aguilon-Lopez failed to offer any evidence to this 

effect. See Larios, 608 F.3d at 109; Mendez-Barrera, 602 F.3d at 

26-27. 

We next turn to Aguilon-Lopez's fallback claim that he 

was persecuted on account of his and his family's political 

opinions. This claim is misguided, and we find the BIA's treatment 

of it well-reasoned: 

Initially, we note that in his asylum application, the 

respondent did not indicate that he was seeking 

withholding of removal on account of political opinion[]. 

Even if he had, the evidence does not support such a claim 

. . . . The respondent has not claimed that his father's 

detentions involved him, and the respondent testified that 

his father has had no problems with the Guatemalan 

authorities since the two incidents in the 1980s. 

We also note that Aguilon-Lopez has never personally 

experienced harm at the hands of the Guatemalan government for any 

reason, let alone in relation to his father's suspected antigovernment beliefs. See Mendez-Barrera, 602 F.3d at 27 ("Holding 

religious or political beliefs, without more, is not sufficient to 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 10 - 

show persecution on account of those beliefs . . . . There must 

be evidence that the would-be persecutors knew of the beliefs and 

targeted the belief holder for that reason.") (emphasis in 

original). Accordingly, we find no merit to Aguilon-Lopez's 

challenge to this aspect of the BIA's decision. 

Finally, Aguilon-Lopez's claim for protection under the 

CAT similarly fails because he has not shown that he will be 

subject to torture through the acquiescence or willful blindness 

of a public official.4 See Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9, 19 

(1st Cir. 2014) ("A petitioner seeking CAT protection must show 

'it is more likely than not' that he would be subject to torture 

'by or with the acquiescence of a government official.'") (quoting 

Nako v. Holder, 611 F.3d 45, 50 (1st Cir. 2010)). 

Aguilon-Lopez has not presented any discrete evidence in 

support of his claim and instead relies on generalized State 

Department country conditions reports. "Although such reports are 

sometimes helpful to an alien's claim, their generic nature is 

such that they are rarely dispositive." Mendez-Barrera, 602 F.3d 

at 28. Such is the case here: while the submitted reports clearly 

show that gang activity in Guatemala is a serious problem, they do 

not compel a conclusion that the Guatemalan government is a mere 

 4 We bypass the government's argument that Aguilon-Lopez has 

waived the CAT issue because his CAT claim fails in any event. 

See Vega-Ayala, 833 F.3d at 39. 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177
- 11 - 

bystander to gang violence or that it would acquiesce or turn a 

blind eye to Aguilon-Lopez's possible torture. 

Aguilon-Lopez's own testimony that the police "can't do 

anything about . . . gangsters" leads to the same conclusion: 

though Guatemalan authorities may be mired in the arduous task of 

containing gang violence, we struggle to see how the proffered 

evidence supports, let alone compels, a conclusion contrary to 

that of the agency. See Granada-Rubio, 814 F.3d at 40 (affirming 

CAT denial even though country reports showed that the government 

had not adequately dealt with complaints of torture and "cruel, 

inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment perpetrated by 

public officials"). Given these deficiencies, we hold that 

substantial evidence supports the BIA's rejection of his CAT claim. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, we deny the petition for 

review. 

Case: 15-2570 Document: 00117091405 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 6054177