Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01297/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent
Antonio Molina Solis
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Michael B. Mukasey, now Attorney General of the United States, is substituted

as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1297

___________

Antonio Molina Solis, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of an

* Order of the Board of 

Michael B. Mukasey,1

 * Immigration Appeals.

Attorney General of the *

United States of America, *

*

Respondent. * 

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2007

Filed: February 8, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Antonio Molina-Solis (Solis), a citizen of El Salvador, sought

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT),

contending that a return to El Salvador would subject him to likely harm or death due

to his former membership in the country's military. The Immigration Judge (IJ)

Appellate Case: 07-1297 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Entry ID: 3400469
-2-

denied both claims and was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Solis petitions for review, arguing that the BIA committed legal error in affirming the

IJ's decision. We deny the petition.

Solis, who is fifty years old, illegally entered the United States on three

occasions, most recently in October 2005. He had previously been deported in 1992

after his first entry in 1989 and again in 1999 after he reentered the United States in

1993. Solis claims that he escaped from El Salvador because of political persecution

inflicted on him by a terrorist guerrilla group for his membership in the armed forces

of El Salvador from 1984 to 1987. Although he has never been personally harmed,

Solis fears that he would be subjected to injury or death by the Mara Salvatrucha

guerilla group if he were returned to El Salvador. Solis claims that his son was killed

in 2003 and his wife raped in 1989 in retaliation for his former membership in the

military.

In 1992 Solis was arrested in Oregon for attempting to sell cocaine to an

undercover police officer. Solis entered a counseled plea of guilty to delivering a

controlled substance in violation of Oregon state law; he received a probationary

sentence and did not appeal his conviction. Despite this conviction, Solis claimed to

the IJ in his current removal proceeding that he had in fact not attempted to sell

cocaine but had merely been watching a bag for a stranger at the time the police

searched it. Solis's account was contradicted by the police report, which stated that

he had sold a powder that appeared to be cocaine to an undercover police officer for

$40 and was later found to have that money and additional powder on his person. In

light of the police report, the IJ found Solis's testimony about his arrest not credible.

Because the IJ determined that Solis had been convicted of a "particularly

serious crime," he ruled that his application for withholding of removal was barred

under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 241(b)(3). See 8 U.S.C. §

1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) (withholding of removal not required if "the alien, having been

convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime is a danger to the

Appellate Case: 07-1297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Entry ID: 3400469
2

Such unusual circumstances must include at a minimum (1) a very small

quantity of controlled substance; (2) a very modest amount of money paid for the

drugs; (3) merely peripheral involvement by the alien; (4) the absence of any violence

or threat of violence associated with the offense; (5) the absence of any organized

crime or terrorist organization involvement; and (6) the absence of any adverse or

harmful effect of the activity on juveniles. Id. at 276-77.

-3-

community of the United States."). In doing so, the IJ analyzed the applicable law and

determined that Solis's conviction did not warrant an exception under Matter of Y-L-,

23 I.&N. Dec 270 (BIA 2002), because he had been directly involved in the sale of

drugs rather than being a peripheral participant. In Matter of Y-L-, 23 I.& N. Dec at

276, the BIA decided that a drug trafficking felony conviction presumptively

constituted a particularly serious crime making aliens removable absent enumerated

exceptional circumstances.2

 

The IJ also ruled in the alternative that Solis's withholding of removal claim

would be denied even if he had not been convicted of a particularly serious crime,

because he had not met his burden to show that he would more likely than not be

persecuted on the basis of protected grounds upon his return to El Salvador. The IJ

cited the lack of harm Solis suffered while living in El Salvador after his second

deportation and the merely speculative evidence connecting the death of his son and

the rape of his wife to his long ago military service. While the IJ credited Solis's

testimony that he had served in the military in the 1980s and that his son was killed

in 2003, he found that Solis had made no credible showing that the former guerillas

are still intent on harming him fifteen years after the signing of the El Salvadoran

peace accords, in particular because political violence in today's El Salvador appears

more connected to right wing groups, which would have no incentive to kill Solis, a

former soldier. The IJ also observed that Solis had never himself been the victim of

any harm relating to his military service in El Salvador, despite living there for several

years after his second deportation. Finally, the IJ denied Solis's claim under Article

III of the CAT because he failed to show that he feared torture inflicted on him by the

Appellate Case: 07-1297 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Entry ID: 3400469
-4-

government or with consent or acquiescence of public officials. See 8 C.F.R. §

1208.18(a)(1),(7).

In dismissing Solis's appeal, the BIA agreed with the IJ's determination that

Solis was barred from withholding of removal due to his conviction for a particularly

serious crime. The BIA also upheld the IJ's finding that even if Solis had not been

barred, he failed to prove that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted

on protected grounds upon his return to El Salvador. Lastly, the BIA concluded that

the IJ correctly ruled that Solis failed to meet his burden of proof on the CAT claim.

Solis argues that the IJ and the BIA committed legal error in concluding that he

did not qualify for an exception under Matter of Y-L- as he was deemed to have been

convicted of a particularly serious crime. Specifically, Solis contends that he was

deprived of due process when the BIA and IJ credited the police report's description

of his arrest over Solis's contrary testimony at his removal proceedings. The

government submits that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's order of removal and

denial of withholding under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) which precludes our review

of decisions or actions of the Attorney General the authority for which this subchapter

specifies as within his discretion. 

Under § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) an alien is removable if the Attorney General decides

that the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious

crime, is a danger to the community. Solis does not deny that he was convicted of an

aggravated felony but disputes that the conviction constituted a particularly serious

crime. See § 1101(a)(43)(B) (defining illicit trafficking in a controlled substance as

an aggravated felony). An aggravated felony committed by an alien applying for

withholding of removal is considered a particularly serious crime automatically, if the

applicant was sentenced "to an aggregate term of imprisonment of at least five years."

See § 1231(b)(3)(B). Furthermore, the Attorney General may determine that a

conviction resulting in a sentence of fewer than five years was a particularly serious

crime. Id. 

Appellate Case: 07-1297 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Entry ID: 3400469
3

The Third Circuit has taken a broader approach to reviewability. See Alaka

v. Attorney General of the United States, 456 F.3d 88, 95 (3d Cir. 2006) (absence of

explicit language granting Attorney General discretion to determine that an alien has

been convicted of particularly serious crime permits appellate review of that

determination).

-5-

Whether Solis's crime is considered particularly serious was determinable by

the Attorney General since his drug conviction resulted in a sentence of less than five

years. We may review this determination only to consider a constitutional claim or

a question of law. See § 1252(a)(2)(D) ("Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in

any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates

judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or

questions of law . . .").

Since Solis makes a due process claim related to the IJ's determination that he

was convicted of a particularly serious crime, we have jurisdiction to address that

contention pursuant to § 1252(a)(2)(D). This conclusion is similar to the one reached

by the Ninth Circuit in Afridi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2006), where

there was jurisdiction to review the petitioner's claim that the BIA had not used the

correct legal standard in reaching its conclusion that his aggravated felony was a

particularly serious crime.3

 The Afridi court distinguished that issue from a

petitioner's unreviewable claim attacking the merits of a BIA decision, citing

Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 933 (9th Cir. 2005).

Solis's claim that the IJ and BIA deprived him of due process is without merit.

Solis's argument that the police report of his 1992 drug arrest was inadmissible

hearsay is inapposite; even hearsay would be admissible since the traditional rules of

evidence do not apply in immigration proceedings. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d

812, 816 (8th Cir. 2004) ("The sole test for admission of evidence is whether the

evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair."). The police report was

highly probative because it directly contradicted Solis's assertion about the

circumstances of his drug arrest. Moreover, there is no basis to doubt the accuracy of

Appellate Case: 07-1297 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Entry ID: 3400469
-6-

the police report, especially since Solis pled guilty to the drug charges and has never

before disputed the police report's veracity. 

We review the denial of Solis's CAT claim for "whether the evidence was so

compelling that a reasonable factfinder must have found the alien entitled to relief

under the Convention." Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 992 (8th Cir. 2004). To be

entitled to protection under the CAT, Solis must show that it is more likely than not

that he would be tortured in El Salvador "at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or person acting in an official capacity." 8 C.F.R. §

208.18(a)(1). Official acquiescence requires a showing of prior awareness by a public

official of torture and a breach of the official's legal responsibility to intervene to

prevent such activity. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7). The IJ and BIA considered the

evidence and determined that Solis failed to meet his evidentiary burden under the

CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Although the government of El Salvador may

struggle to control violence, there is no evidence in the record that government agents

participate or acquiesce in possible torture perpetrated by others. See Menjivar v.

Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2005) (while the government of El Salvador

may have a problem controlling gang activity of which it is aware, this is not

sufficient to find torture by third parties). We thus conclude that substantial evidence

supports the IJ's and BIA's determination that Solis was not eligible for relief under

the CAT.

For these reasons we deny Solis's petition.

_________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1297 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Entry ID: 3400469