N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
IGINIO C R

UZ C ALLES, AKA Higinio C ruz C a lle s, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-72181 Age n c y No. A075-529-054
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 April 10, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C ALLAHAN, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Iginio C ruz C a lle s is a native an d c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor. He pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of his a pplic ation for a s y l um . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1) an d we grant his pe t ition. W e de te rm ine 

# FIL ED M AY03 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t C ruz C a lle s did not suffer harm rising to the

le ve l of pe rse c ution is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . W e re m and to theB IA. W e re vie w for “ substa

ntia l e vide nc e the B IA’ s de c ision tha t a n a pplic ant fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum .” N

juguna v . Ashc roft , 374 F.3d 765, 769 (9th C ir. 2004). “Unde r the substa ntia l e vide n c e sta

nda rd, the c ourt upholds the B IA’ s de te rm ination unle ss the e vide nc e in the re c ord c om pe ls a c o ntra ry c onc lusion.” Arte aga v . Muk ase y , 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th C ir. 2007). B e c a use the IJ found C ruzC a lle s c re dible and the B IA did not disturb this finding, we ta ke C ruz C a lle s’ te stim ony

and pre se ntation a s true . Se e K arouni v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1163, 1166 n.1 (9th C i r. 2005). To qua lify

for hum a nita rian a sy lum , C ruz C a lle s m ust show both (1) pa st pe rse c ution a

nd (2) “ a re a s ona ble possibility

tha t [he ] m ay

suffe r othe r se rious ha rm upon re m ova l to” El Sa lva dor. Hanna v . K e i sle r , 506 F.3d 933, 939 (9th C ir. 2007); 8 C
. F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B ). To show pa st pe rse c ution, C ruz C a lle s
m ust e s ta blish tha t “ (1) his tre a t

m e nt rise s to the le ve l of pe rse c ution; (2) the pe rse c ution wa s on a c c ount of oneor m ore prote c te d grounds; a nd (3) the pe rse c ution wa s c om

m i tte d by the gove rnm e n t, or by forc e s tha

t the gove rnm e nt
wa s una ble or unwilling to c o ntrol.” B aghdasaryan v . Holde r , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th C ir. 2010).
2On the first prong, the B IA found theha rm s C ruzC a lle s suffe re d did not rise to the le v e l of pe rse c ution. Pe rse c ution is not de fine d in the Im m igration a

nd Nationa l ity

Ac t . Baballah v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th C ir. 2004). The re is no se t of c rite ria

to de fine pe rse c ution, so the qua ntum of ha rm that qua l ifie s a s pe rse c ution is me a sure d in re lation to pa st c a se s. Se e N av as v . I.N

.S. , 217 F.3d 646, 655, n.9 (9th C ir. 2000). “ An a pplic ant m a

y suffe r pe rse c ution be c a

use of the
c um ulat ive im pa c t of se ve ra l inc ide nts e ve n whe re no single inc ide nt would
c onstitute pe rse c ution on its own.” Baballah , 367 F.3d a t 1076. C ruz C a lle s c re dibly

put forth e vide nc e of the following ha rm s: (1) his fam ily wa s displa c e d from

the c offe e farm

whe re the y

live d; (2) thre e of his
c ousins we re e xtra

judic ia lly kille d; a nd (3) in 1994, C ruz C a lle s wa s dra gge d from his fa m ily ’ s house , wa s be a te n up, a nd wa s told “ the sa

m e thing would ha

ppe n to him ” tha t ha ppe ne d to his m

urde re d re lative s if he did not le ave the c o untry . Ec onom ic ha

rm c a n c onstitute

pe rse c ution whe re “ t

he re is a proba bility of de libe ra t e im

position of substa

ntia l e c onom ic disa dva

nta g e upon thea

pplic ant on
a c c ount of a prote c te d ground.” C hand v . IN

S , 222 F.3d 1066, 1074 (9th C ir. 2000) (inte rna l quota

t ions omitte d). The displa c e m e nt of C ruz C a lle s ’ fam ily by the Sa lva dora

n m i lita ry shows “ a proba bility of de libe ra te im

position of substa

ntia l

3e c onom ic disa dva nta g e ” on C ruz C a lle s and his fa m ily and c ontribute s to a

finding of pe rse c ution. In a ddition to this e c onom ic ha rm , C ruz C a l le s a lso suffe re d phy sic a l ha

rm . In the 1994 a

tt a c k, C ruz C a lle s wa s bound, dra gge d from his fa m ily ’ s hom e at night by thre e m e n c arry ing rifle s, be at e n up for te n m inute s, a

nd thre at e ne d with de a th. The B IA found the phy sic a l atta c k did not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution be c a use the ha rm “ wa s lim ite d in na

ture ” in tha

t “ re sponde nt only

suffe re d c uts on his ne c k a nd a rm , re sulting in a

n unknown num

be r of stitc he s , a

nd othe rwise did not re quire signific ant m e dic a l tre atm e nt.” Howe ve r, we have he ld tha t de ath thre a ts a c c o m

pa n ie d by “ c lose c onfronta

tion” c an rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution,
e ve n without phy sic a l m istre a tm e nt. Se e , e .g., Ruano v . Ashc roft, 301 F.3d 1155, 1158 (9th C ir. 2002) (finding pa st pe rse c ution whe re pe titione r re c e ive d de ath thre a ts a nd wa s c orne re d by

arm e d m e n on se v e ra l oc c a sions). He re , the thre ats
we re m a de by

arm e d atta c ke rs a

nd a c c om p anie d by a phy sic a l a ssa

ult tha t re quire d
m e dic a l atte n tion. Thele ve l of ha rm to C ruz C a lle s wa s gre ate r tha n the B IA’ s out-of-c onte xt sum

m ary of his injurie s a lone sugge s ts. In a ddition, “

ha rm to a pe titione r’ s c lose re l ative s, frie nds, or a ssoc i ate s m a y c ontributeto a

suc c e ssful showing of pa st pe rse c ution” if the ha rm wa s “ pa rt of a patte rn of pe rse c ution c lose ly tie d to [the pe titione r] him se lf.” W ak k ary v . Holde r , 4558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th C ir. 2009) (c i ting Arriaga–Barrie ntos v . IN S , 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th C ir. 1991)). The B IA found “ no indic ation tha t the m urde rs of the
re sponde nt’ s thre e c ousins” we re “ c lose ly tie d” to C ruz C a lle s him se lf. In so finding, theB IA c le arly

e rre d. The polic e re port submitte d by C ruz C a lle s into the
a dm inistra

tive re c ord c o ntra dic ts this finding. Tha t re port sta

te s tha t the 1994
a tta c k e rs thre a te n e d tha

t “ t he sa m e thing would ha

p pe n to him ” tha

t ha ppe ne d to his m urde re d re lat ive s. W e are c om

pe lle d to find tha

t, c um ulative ly , the se ha

rm s rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution whe n c om

pa re d with our pa st c a se s. Se e , e .g., Guo v . Se

s sions , 897 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th C ir. 2018) (finding pa st pe rse c ution whe re the pe titione r wa s sla ppe d twic e and struc k for one or two m inute s with a baton, but wa s at the hospita l for only an hour, c om bine d with thre at s of future ha rm if the pe titione r pa rtic i pate d in his home c hurc h); N av as v . I.N

. S., 2 17 F.3d 646, 658 (9th C ir. 2000) (holding tha

t “ Nav a s ha s unque stiona

bly de m onstra

te d pe rse c ution” whe re he wa s “ thre ate ne d with de a th, . . . two me m be rs of his fa

m ily we re m urde re d, he
wa s shot a

t, a nd his m othe r be a te n” ). The B IA e nde d its a

na ly sis of pa s t pe rse c ution a fte r de te rm ining tha t the ha rm C ruz C a lle s suffe re d did not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. W e c onc lude

5that

finding is not supporte d by substa n tia l e vide n c e . Ac c ordingly , we re m and for the B IA for furthe r proc e e dings. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D.

6