N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDGAR AR M ANDO C H AVEZ, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-70822 Age n c y No. A094-144-347
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 4, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN a

nd B E A, C irc uit Judge s, a nd W HALEY, ** Distric t Judge
. Edga r Arm ando C have z , a

native an d c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a l (“ B IA” )’ s de c ision dism issing his
a ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge(“ IJ” )’ s de c ision finding him re m o va ble and 

# F IL ED JAN 10 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 Honora

ble R obe rt H. W

ha l e y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.de ny ing his a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd de fe rra l of
re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252, a

nd we dism iss in pa

rt a nd de n y in pa rt the pe tition for
re vie w. First, C have z argue s , for the first tim e , tha t the Age nc y

e rre d in de ny i ng withholding of rem o v a l be c a use “ it did not a d dre ss the re le va nt fram e work” in Matte r of Y-L- , 23 I. & N. De c . 270 (AG 2002), whe n it found tha t his a ggrava te d fe lony c onvic tion wa s a

pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e . W e “ m ay re vie w a fina l orde r of re m ova l only

if . . . the a lie n ha s e xha

uste d a ll a dm i nistra

tive re m e die s a

va ila ble to the a lie n a s of right.” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1). M ore ove r, “ we m ay re v ie w a ny issue addre

sse d on the me r its by

the B IA, re ga

rdle ss whe t

he r it wa s ra i se d to the B IA by the pe t itione r.” Rodrigue z-C aste llon v . Holde r , 733 F.3d 847, 852 (9th C ir. 2013) (e m

pha sis a dde d). He re , the B IA did not a ddre ss on the m e rits whe the r C have z ove rc a m e the pre sum ption unde r Matte r of Y-L- that he wa s c onvic t e d of a pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e , but ra

the r de te rm ine d tha

t C have z did not m e e t his burde n of pre se nting e v ide nc e to re but tha t pre s um p tion. Ac c ordingly , C have z fa ile d to e xha

ust his a rgum e nt re ga

rding the IJ’ s pa

rtic ula rly se rious c rim e de te rm i na tion to the

Age nc y .

2Se c ond, the Age nc y did not e rr by

holding tha

t C have z fa ile d to de m onstra te C AT de fe rra l e ligibility . Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the Age nc y ’ s finding tha t C have z fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t he would “ m o re like ly

tha n not” be torture d by the Sa lva dora

n polic e . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). Although C have z m ay be inte rroga te d a s pa

rt of the re c e ption proc e ss whe n he re turns to El Sa l va d or, a wide
va rie ty of inte rroga tion te c hnique s a re e m ploy e d , m any

of whic h a

re not torture . The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the re q

uisite “ m ore like l y

tha n not” proba

bility of torture . M ore ove r, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t the Sa lva d oran gove rnm e nt would not c onse nt or a c quie sc e to torture by ga ngs. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(1) (a pplic a nt m ust show tha

t the a lle ge d torture will be

“ inflic te d by

or at the instiga

tion of or with the

c onse n t or a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c t ing in a n offic i a l c a

pa c ity ” ). El Sa lva dor ha s e na c te d
anti-ga ng la ws, whic h “ e m

bra c e a c om

pre he nsive a

pproa c h to ga

n g viole nc e pre v e n tion” and inc lude se ve ra l c om pone nts a im e d at y outh pre ve ntion a nd
re ha bilita tion from ga ngs. Although some of the se la ws m ay be ine ffe c tive and the
soc i a l c om

p one nts unde r-funde d, the gove rnm e nt is none the l e ss ta king a c tion by
e na c ting a

nti-ga ng la w s . Se e Garc ia-Milian v

. Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ [a ] gove rnm e nt doe s not a c q uie sc e in the torture of its c itiz e ns m e re ly
3be c a

use it is a ware of torture but powe rle ss to stop it” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d)). In a ddition, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the Age nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t C have z fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t he would m ore like l y tha n not be ta

rge te d and torture d by

ga ngs. C have z ’ s c la im

tha t he will be ta

rge te d by ga

ngs is pre m ise d on be ing re c ogniz e d a s a

form e r gang m e m

be r. C have z te stifie d tha

t he ha s two ga

ng tattoos. Onetattoo ha s be e n c o ve re d up with other ta

ttoos, a nd the othe r is in a disc re te loc a tion a

n d c an be hidde n. C have z te stifie d tha t pe ople c a

nnot ide ntify him a s a form e r gang m e m

b e r ba se d on his a

ppe aranc e an d how he pre se nts him se lf. Eve n a ssum ing ga

ng m e m be rs will be a

ble to re c ogniz e C have z a s a form e r
m e m b e r, the Age nc y prope rly

found insuffic i e nt e vide nc e to de m onstra te tha t the y would torturehim . C hav e z le ft the ga ng while he wa s living in the Unite d State s without inc ide nt, a

nd he wa s not thre a te ne d

or ha rm e d in the e ight y e ars sinc e le a ving. M ore o ve r, no e vide nc e wa s pre se nte d tha t the ga ng would vie w C have z ’ s de pa rture a s unsa

nc tione d. In a ddition, the

Age nc y prope rly found tha

t C have z , who is now in his fortie s , wa s unlike ly

to be ta rge te d by ga n gs ba s e d upon his a ge . Dr. Ha rry Vande n te stifie d tha

t the ga n gs ta rge t El Sa lva dor’ s y outh a nd tha t ga ng m e m be rs
4are u sua lly be twe e n the a ge s of nine or te n a nd into the ir twe ntie s. The doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e furthe r supports tha t ga ngs ta rge t the y outh of El Sa l va dor, not m e n who a

re ove r 40 y e ars old. Additiona l ly , C hav e z te stifie d tha

t ga ng
m e m b e rs c a n e arn “ ve t e rano” sta

tus for pre vious a c tions a

n d avoid be ing ha

ra sse d. Fina lly , se ve ra l of C hav e z ’ s a rgum e nts— (1) that

the Sa lva d oran gove rnm e nt would turn a

blind e y e to “ de a th squa d s” of rogue polic e offic e rs ta rge ting ga

ng
m e m b e rs, (2) tha

t the B IA e rre d

by not c re diting Dr. Va

nde n’ s te stim ony that C have z “ a

ppe ars ra the r y oung,” and (3) tha t the Age n c y

e rre d by se pa rate l y
c onside ring va

rious possible

outc om e s fa c ing C have z upon his a rriva l in El Sa lva d or, ra the r tha

n a ddre ssing thea g gre ga te risk of torture ba se d on a ll possible outc om e s—

we re not e xha

uste d to the B IA. Ac c o rdingly , this C ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to c onside r the m . 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); se e Zara v . Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th C ir. 2004). DISM I SSE D IN PART AND DE NIE D IN PART .

5