N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HEC TOR JOSE SILVA VEGA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , JR
. , Attorne y Ge ne ra l , R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72513 Age n c y No. A077-885-554
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ADELM AN, Distric t Judge
. ** He c tor Jose Silva

Ve ga (“ Pe titione r” ) pe titions for re vie wof a fina l orde r of
re m ova l of the B oa

rd of Im m i g ration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252, a

nd we de ny

the pe tition. 

# FIL ED MAR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ly nn S. Ade lm an , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W isc onsin, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r sought a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ); he fe are d pe rse c ution a nd torture be c a

use he ha d re pe ate dly de s e rte d N i c ara gua ’ s Sa ndinista m ilita ry in the 1980s. The im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) de nie d re l ie f a fte r finding tha t Pe titione r ha d not de m onstra

te d pa st pe rse c ution or a

we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. The B IA dism isse d Pe titione r’ s a ppe a l, but this C ourt re m ande d to theB IA to c la rify its finding on pa st pe rse c ution. TheDe pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity

(“ DHS” ) the n c onc e de d tha

t Pe titione r ha d e sta

blishe d pa s t pe rse c ution on the ba sis of
c onsc i e ntious obje c t i on to thepra c tic e s of the Sandinista m ilita ry , but a rgue d on
re m and tha

t a funda m e nta l c ha

nge in c irc um sta

nc e s in Nic a

ra gua re nde re d re lie f ina p propria te . The B IA a ga in de nie d re lie f. Pe titione r c onte nds tha

t this C ourt should gra

nt his pe tition be c a

use of
se ve ra l proc e dura l issue s with theproc e e dings be fore the IJ a nd the B IA. He first
argue s tha

t the IJ viola

te d Pe titione r’ s due proc e ss rights by fa iling to inform

him of the pote ntia l a

va i la bility of C AT re lie f be fore the c lose of the m e rits he aring. An IJ ha s a

duty to e xpla in to a

n a lie n his “ a

ppa re nt e ligibility” for re l ie f. Unite d State s v . Lope z-Ve lasque

z , 629 F.3d 894, 896-97 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba nc ). Howe ve r, an a lie n m

ust show pre

judic e –tha

t the due proc e ss viola

tion pote ntia lly

“ a ffe c t[e d] the outc om e of the proc e e dings”

– i n orde r to obta in re lie f. Agy e m an v . 2IN

S , 296 F.3d 871, 884 (9th C i r. 2002) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Pe titione r wa s not pre c lude d by the IJ from

pre se nting a

ny e vide nc e during the
m e rits he aring, ha s not c i t e d a ny e vide nc e he would ha

ve introduc e d ha d

the IJ notifie d him

of the ava i la

bility of C A T re lie f, an d

ha s not otherwise shown pre j udic e . B e c a

use he ha s not shown pre

judic e , his due proc e ss a

rgum e nt fa ils. Se c ond, Pe titione r argue s tha t DHS wa ive d its a

rgum e nt of a

funda m e nta l
c ha nge in c irc um sta

nc e s by not ra i sing it until this C o urt gra nte d DHS’ s re q

ue st for
a re m and to the B IA. DHS m ay wa ive suc h a

n argum e nt by

fa iling to raise it be fore the IJ or the B IA. Se e Baballah v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1067, 1078 & n.11 (9th C ir. 2004). Howe ve r, DHS ra ise d the issue be fore the B IA a s soon a s it
c onc e de d tha

t Pe titione r ha d de m onstra te d pa s t pe rse c ution, a

nd thus a s soon a s the issue of c ha

nge d c ountry

c irc um sta

nc e s be c am e re le va

nt to theB IA’ s a

na ly sis. DHS did not wai ve its a

rgum e nt of a

funda m e nta l c ha

nge in c ountry c irc um s ta nc e s . Third, Pe t itione r a sse rts tha t the B IA both e xc e e de d the sc o pe of this C ourt’ s re m and a nd im pe rm issibly

e nga ge d in fa c t-finding in c o nc l uding tha t DHS ha d shown a funda m e nta l c ha

nge in c ountry

c irc um sta

nc e s. This C o urt dire c te d the B IA to c la

rify its finding re ga

rding pa st pe rse c ution on re m an d; im plic it in the orde r wa s a

n instruc tion to de te rm ine ba s e d on tha t finding whe the r Pe titione r wa s 3e ligiblefor re lie f. In m aking its finding on c ha nge d c ountry

c i rc um sta

nc e s, the B IA re lie d on fa c t s found by the IJ a nd on c ountry

re p orts introduc e d into e vide nc e be fore the IJ. The B IA did not re vie w de novo fa c tua l findings by the IJ or othe rwise im

prope rly find fa c ts. Se eRodrigue z v . Holde r , 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining tha t B IA e rrs a s a m atte r of la w whe n it “ e nga ge s in de
novo re vie w of a

n IJ’ s fa c tua l findings” ). The B IA did not e rr by c onside ring DHS’ s c ha

nge d-c irc um sta

nc e s a rgum e nt a nd did not im

pe rm issibly

e nga ge in fa c tfinding. Pe titione r a lso a

rgue s on them e rits tha

t the B IA inc orre c tly

found a c ha

nge in c o untry

c irc um s ta

nc e s and im

prope rly de n i e d re lie f. This C ourt re vie ws suc h a finding for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Gui v . IN

S , 280 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th C ir. 2002). He re , the B IA note d, a

m ong othe r c onside rations, tha t the m ilita

ry c onflic t during whic h Pe titione r wa s pe rse c ute d ha d e nde d twe nty y e ars e arlie r, a ge ne ra l am ne sty ha d be e n gra

nte d t o a ll Sa

ndinista de se rte rs, a

nd Pe titione r’ s brothe rs–a lso Sandinista

de se rte rs–ha d be e n a

ble to livein Nic ara g ua

without fa c ing pe rse c ution. Substa ntia l e vide nc e thus supports the B IA’ s finding of a

funda m e nta l c ha

nge in
c irc um s ta nc e s in Nic ara g ua and the de nia l of a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l. B e c a use a showing of c ha

n g e d c ountry

c irc um sta

nc e s c an de fe at a

C AT c la im , se e Sow e v . Muk

ase y , 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th C ir. 2008), substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso 4supports the

de nia l of prote c tion unde r the C AT. Fina lly , Pe titione r a rgue s tha t he should begrante d

hum anita rian a sy l um . Howe ve r, the B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t ne ithe r the se ve rity

of the pa s t pe rse c ution e ndure d by Pe titione r nor othe r re le va nt c irc um sta

nc e s wa rrant hum anita

rian a sy lum
. Se e Be lay n e h v . IN

S , 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th C ir. 2000). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

5