Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-12448/USCOURTS-ca11-19-12448-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Avila Gutierrez
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12448

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A206-860-739

ANTONIO AVILA GUTIERREZ, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(May 21, 2020)

Before LAGOA, EDMONDSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

USCA11 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 1 of 8
2

PER CURIAM: 

Antonio Gutierrez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the 

decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied Petitioner’s 

applications for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention 

Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (“CAT”).*

 No reversible error has been shown; 

we deny the petition.

We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent the BIA adopts 

expressly the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 

2001). Because the BIA agreed expressly with the IJ’s reasoning in this case, we 

review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See id. 

We review de novo the BIA’s legal conclusions. Id. We review fact 

determinations under the “highly deferential substantial evidence test” whereby we 

“must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and 

probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 

386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We “view the record evidence 

in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable 

* The IJ also denied Petitioner’s application for asylum. Petitioner raises no challenge to the 

denial of this form of relief on appeal; we will not address that claim. See Sepulveda v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 

USCA11 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 2 of 8
3

inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. at 1027. To reverse a fact finding, we 

must conclude “that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” 

Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). 

To obtain withholding of removal, an alien must establish that his “life or 

freedom would be threatened in that 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). “The alien bears the burden of demonstrating that it is 

‘more likely than not’ [he] will be persecuted or tortured upon being returned to 

[his] country.” Tan v. United States Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 

2006). To satisfy this burden, the alien must demonstrate either past persecution 

based on a protected ground or that he will more-likely-than-not suffer future 

persecution on account of a protected ground. Seck v. United States Att’y Gen., 

663 F.3d 1356, 1365 (11th Cir. 2011). 

To establish eligibility for CAT relief, an alien must show “that it is more 

likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country 

of removal.” Reyes-Sanchez v. United States Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239, 1242 

(11th Cir. 2004). The alien must also show that the torture would be inflicted by or 

with the acquiescence of the removal country’s government. Id. “Acquiescence 

requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have 

USCA11 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 3 of 8
4

awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to 

intervene to prevent such activity.” Id. (quotations omitted).

Petitioner first entered the United States in 1992, after which he returned to 

Mexico two or three times; Petitioner last entered the United States in 2009. 

Petitioner says he came to the United States because of the “delinquency” in 

Mexico and says he witnessed assaults, deaths, rapes, and kidnappings committed 

by a criminal cartel known as “Los Zetas.” 

In October 2008, Petitioner was attacked by Los Zetas while Petitioner was 

on his way home from work, having just been paid for the week. Petitioner 

described his attackers as three men who were heavily armed with lethal weapons. 

The attackers demanded Petitioner pay them 30,000 pesos. When Petitioner told 

the attackers that he did not have that kind of money and also refused to hand over 

the money in his wallet, the attackers beat Petitioner. Petitioner suffered a wound 

near his eye, cuts to his face, and other injuries causing him to vomit blood. The 

attackers then stole Petitioner’s wallet, watch, cell phone, and wedding ring. 

Petitioner was later kidnapped while trying to leave Mexico and to return to 

the United States. Petitioner was held hostage for about one month until 

Petitioner’s family paid a ransom of 10,000 pesos. During that time, Petitioner 

says he was only permitted to eat sometimes. Petitioner says his brother was also 

beaten for money in 2010. 

USCA11 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 4 of 8
5

In his applications for relief, Petitioner sought withholding of removal based 

on his membership in a proposed particular social group: “Mexican male[s] that 

have lived in the United States for over ten years and will be a target of the 

international criminal organizations that operate in their home country because 

they are presumed to have money and are in danger of being extorted, kidnapped, 

tortured and/or even murdered.” Petitioner also sought protection under CAT 

based on his fear that he would be tortured by Los Zetas -- with the acquiescence 

of the Mexican government -- upon his return to Mexico.

The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for relief. The IJ first determined that 

Petitioner failed to establish a factual basis for his claims because his testimony 

was lacking in detail and uncorroborated by other evidence. As a separate and 

independent reason for denying withholding of removal, the IJ also determined that 

Petitioner had failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his past 

mistreatment or feared future mistreatment and a protected ground. About CAT 

relief, the IJ also concluded that Petitioner presented no evidence that he would be 

tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the Mexican government. The BIA 

agreed with the IJ’s reasoning. 

An applicant’s testimony -- without corroboration -- may be sufficient to 

satisfy his burden of proof if the testimony is credible, persuasive, and refers to 

specific facts sufficient to establish his claim. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 

USCA11 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 5 of 8
6

1231(b)(3)(C). If, however, the IJ determines that corroborating evidence is 

necessary, the applicant must provide that evidence unless he can show that he 

“does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain [it].” 8 U.S.C. § 

1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s determinations that 

Petitioner failed to provide sufficiently detailed, consistent, and corroborated 

testimony to establish a factual basis for his claims for withholding of removal and 

CAT relief. Petitioner’s allegations and testimony about past mistreatment --

including the October 2008 attack by Los Zetas, Petitioner’s kidnapping, and the 

attack on Petitioner’s brother -- lacked specific details. For example, although 

Petitioner testified that he was kidnapped and held hostage for about one month, he 

provided no details about the kidnapping itself, about the identity of his 

kidnappers, or about the location where he was held. 

In the light of Petitioner’s testimony that his family paid a ransom following 

Petitioner’s kidnapping and that Petitioner’s brother was also attacked, the IJ and 

the BIA determined reasonably that corroborating evidence was necessary. 

Petitioner, however, provided no witness testimony or affidavits supporting his 

claims. Nor has Petitioner shown that such evidence was unavailable or otherwise 

explained his failure to produce such evidence.

USCA11 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 6 of 8
7

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s second 

independent ground for denying withholding of removal: that Petitioner failed to 

demonstrate that he suffered past mistreatment or was likely to suffer future 

mistreatment on account of a protected ground. Petitioner’s testimony evidences 

that he was targeted by Los Zetas and by his kidnappers chiefly for financial gain. 

In a similar way, Petitioner’s proposed particular social group demonstrates 

Petitioner’s belief that he was (and will be) targeted by criminal organizations 

based on a perception that Petitioner has money. We have said, however, that 

evidence -- like the evidence presented by Petitioner in this case -- that “is 

consistent with acts of private violence or . . . that merely shows that a person has 

been the victim of criminal activity, does not constitute evidence of persecution 

based on a statutorily protected ground.” See Ruiz v. United States Att’y Gen., 

440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006). 

About Petitioner’s application for CAT relief, substantial evidence supports 

the IJ’s and the BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to show that it was more 

likely than not that, upon return to Mexico, Petitioner would be tortured by, or with 

the acquiescence of, the Mexican government. Petitioner makes no assertion that 

he suffered harm or fears harm inflicted directly by a government official. 

Although Petitioner presented some evidence of police corruption within Mexico, 

nothing evidences that the Mexican police had prior specific knowledge of the 

USCA11 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 7 of 8
8

October 2008 attack or of Petitioner’s kidnapping but refused to intervene. Nor 

did Petitioner provide evidence that he reported these attacks to the Mexican police 

or that the police took no action. 

The IJ’s and the BIA’s decision that Petitioner was unentitled to withholding 

of removal or to CAT relief is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative 

evidence. Nothing on this record compels us to reverse that decision. 

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 19-12448 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 8 of 8