# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 19 36

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Carl os Ju arez Ch il el

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e

Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 10 , 20 14

Fil ed : M arch 10 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, SMI TH, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Carl os Ju arez Ch il el

, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Gua te m al a, pe ti ti on ed fo r as y lu m

un de r 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 1)

, wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al un de r 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A),

an d rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e (CAT) pu rs ua n t to

8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .16 (c). The Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e (IJ ) de ni ed hi s as y lu m pe ti ti on as

un ti m el y an d de ni ed hi s req ue st s fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d fo r CAT rel ie f onth e m eri ts

. The Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s ( B IA) affi rm ed th e IJ ’s de ci si on

.

Ju arez Ch il el see ks rev ie w. W e d en y hi s p et it io n.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Ju arez Ch il el was bo rn on Apr il 23

, 19 86

, in San Ant on io

, Gua te m al a. In 20 08

,

he was li vi ng in Gua te m al a Ci ty, Gua te m al a, du rin g whi ch ti m e he was th reat en ed by

a lo cal ga ng an d s ta bb ed in th e arm when he refu se d t o jo in th e g an g. He i nf or m ed

t h e po li ce ab ou t th e in ci de nt

, bu t he di d no t se ek m ed ic al tre at m en t fo r hi s i n ju r e d

arm

. Ju arez Ch il el le ft Gua te m al a Ci ty two or th r e e d ay s aft er th e in ci de nt an d

ret ur ne d to hi s ho m et own of San Ant on io

. He st ay ed in Sa n A nt on io fo r se ve ral

m on th s b efo re en te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s i n S ep te m be r 20 09

.

On May 4, 20 10

, Ju arez Ch il el was ta ke n in to th e cu st od y of th e Im m ig rat io n

an d Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t ag en cy aft er be i n g a rres te d an d ch arg ed wit h pr ov id in g

fal se in fo rm at io n an d ha vi ng fo rg ed id en ti fic at io n. He ap pe ared be fo r e t he IJ on

Nov em be r 8, 20 10

, whe re he co nc ed ed he was su bjec t to rem ov al

. He th erea fte r fil ed

an ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m

, wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, an d pr o t e c t i o n un de r th e CAT.

Afte r he su bm it te d a writ te n ap pl ic at io n fo r rel ie f, a se co nd he ari ng was he ld be fo re

th e IJ on Ju ly 19, 2 01 2.

At th is se co nd he ari ng

, Ju arez Ch il el te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s al te rcat io n wit h th e

ga ng in Gua te m al a Ci ty. He co nc ed ed he di d no t kn ow th e res ul t of t h e p o l i ce

in ve st ig at io n be cau se he ha d no t fo ll owe d up wit h la w en fo rcem en t an d ad m it te d he

ha d ne ve r ex pe rie nc ed an y vi ol en ce in San Ant on io

. He te st ifi ed th at he ha d rece iv ed

a le tt er fro m hi s si st er th e week pr io r de sc rib in g a feu d be twee n two ne ig hb or i n g

to wns ov er so m e go ve rn m en t pr op ert y

, an d th is feu d was ta ki ng pl ace in “ th e area in

w h i c h [h e was ] bo rn .” He ha d al so sp ok en wit h hi s m ot he r th e da y be fo re th e

he ari ng ; sh e to ld h im “ ev erythi ng was ba d” an d th at he sh ou ld st ay in th e Uni te d

St at es

. Bo th of Ju arez Ch il el ’s pa ren ts an d f o u r o f h i s si bl in gs st il l li ve in San

-2

-Ant on io

. Ju arez Ch il el al so te st if i e d th at hi s br ot he r was th reat en ed by a

m ach et e-wi el di ng ga ng m em be r in Gua te m al a be cau se he refu se d to joi n a ga ng

, bu t

th at br ot he r ha s be en in th e Uni te d St at es si nc e 20 05 or 20 06

. Ju arez Ch il el co nc ed ed

no ne of hi s ot he r fam il y m em be rs in San Ant on io ha ve pe rs on al ly ex pe rie nc ed

vi ol en ce o r th reat s wh il e li vi ng in Guat em al a.

The IJ de ni ed Ju arez Ch il el ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m as ti m e-b arre d be cau se he

fai le d to fil e th e ap pl ic at io n wit hi n on e y ear of hi s en tra nc e in to th e Uni te d St at es an d

di d no t sa ti sf

y a st at ut or y ex cep ti on to th e on e-year req ui rem en t. The IJ al so de ni ed

Ju arez Ch il el ’s req ue st fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al an d CAT rel ie f on th e m eri ts an d

or de red hi s rem ov al fro m th e Uni te d St at es

. The BIA affi rm e d t h e IJ ’s de ci si on

,

f i n d i ng th at Ju arez Ch il el fai le d to de m on st rat e ch an ge d ci rcu m st an ces un de r

8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (D) an d th at he fai le d to es ta bl is h hi s m em be rs hi p in a di st in ct

so ci al g r o u p f

or pu rp os es of hi s req ue st fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. The BIA al so

fo un d th at Ju arez Ch il el ’s cl ai m un de r th e CAT was wit ho ut a f a c t u al ba si s, as he

fai le d t o e st ab li sh th e Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t h arm ed hi m

.

II . Dis cus si on

On ap pe al , Ju arez Ch il el arg ue s h is ap pl ic at io n for asylum is no t t im e-b arre d

b e c a u s e h e e s t a b l i s h e d “ch a n g e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s ” i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h

8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (D). Fo r pu rp os es of wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , he c on te nd s h e

ha s ex pe rie nc ed pa st pe rs ecu ti on an d ha s a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re p ers ecu ti on

n o t on ly be cau se he refu se d to joi n a ga ng

, bu t al so be cau se he is a m em be r of t h e

Mam et hn ic gr ou p in Gua te m al a. Fi na ll y

, he co nt en ds he wil l su ffer to rtu re if fo rced

to ret ur n t o Gu at em al a an d t hu s s ho ul d re cei ve rel ie f un de r th e CAT.

W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w fin al or de rs of rem ov al pu rs ua nt to

8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 1)

. Thi s co ur t “ ge ne ral ly rev ie w[s] th e BIA’s de ci si on as th e fin al

ag en cy act io n, b ut wher e th e BIA ess en ti al ly ad op te d th e IJ ’s op in io n wh il e ad di ng

-3

-so m e of it s own reas on in g, we rev ie w b ot h de ci si on s.” Oso no wo v

. M u ka se y , 5 21

F.3 d 92 2, 92 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ W e rev ie w th e ag en cy

de te rm in at io n t h a t a n al ie n is no t el ig ib le fo r as y lu m

, wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, or

rel ie f un de r th e Co nve nti on A ga ins t T or tur e us in g th e de fere nt ia l su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

st an da rd .” Id

. at 92 7. “ Und er th is de fere nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w, we are no t at li be rty

to rewei gh th e ev id en ce, an d we wil l up ho ld th e de ni al of r e li ef un le ss th e al ie n

de m on st rat es th at th e ev id en ce was so co m pe ll in g th at no reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d

fai l t o fi nd th e req ui si te fear of p ers ecu ti on .” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

a. Appl ic at io n fo r Asy lu m

Ju arez Ch il el en te red th e Uni te d St at es in Sep te m be r 20 09

, an d he di d no t fil e

an as y lu m ap pl ic at io n u n t i l N o ve m be r 20 10

. He th eref

or e m is se d th e on e-year

st at ut or y de ad li ne fo r req ue st in g as y lu m

. See 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (B) (s ta ti ng th at

as y lu m in th e Uni te d St at es is no t av ai la bl e to an al ie n “ un le ss th e al ie n de m on st rat es

by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at th e [as y lu m ] ap pl ic at io n ha s be en fil ed wit hi n

1 year aft er t he da te of t he ali en ’s arri va l i n t he Uni te d S ta te s.”)

.

The re ar e ex cep ti on s t o t hi s o ne -y ear f il in g ru le :

An ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m of an al ie n m ay be co ns id ered

. . . if th e al ie n

de m on st rat e s t o t h e sa ti sf act io n of th e Att or ne y Gen eral ei th er th e

ex is te nc e of ch an ge d ci rcu m st an ces wh i c h m at eri al ly affe ct th e

ap pl ic an t’s el ig ib il it y fo r as y lu m or ex tra or din ar y ci rc um sta

nces rel at in g

to th e d el ay

in fil in g a n a pp li cat io n wi th in th e [o ne -y ear p eri od ].

8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (D). The IJ de te rm in ed

, an d th e BIA ag reed

, th at Ju arez Ch il el

di d no t m eet an y ex cep ti on se t fo rth in § 11 58 (a)( 2) (D), an d hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r

as y lu m was d eem ed un ti m el y

.

-4

-W he n an IJ ha s “ de te rm in ed th at th e un ti m el in es s of [th e ap pl ic an t’s] as y lu m

a p p l i c a ti on was no t ex cu se d by ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces or ch an ge d co nd it io n s

wit hi n th e m ean in g of 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (D), we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w [th e

ap pl ic an t’s] as y lu m cl ai m .” Mo ua wad v. Gon zal es

, 48 5 F.3 d 40 5, 41 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ); se e 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 3) (“ No co ur t sh al l h a v e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w an y

de te rm in at io n of th e Att or ne y Gen eral [as to whe th er an ex c e pt io n to th e on e-year

ap pl ic at io n req ui rem en t ap pl ie s].”); Ja ll ow v. Gon zal es

, 47 2 F.3 d 56 9, 57 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ) (h ol di ng th at be cau se th e IJ de te rm in ed th e cl ai m an t di d no t sa ti sf y on e of th e

st at ut or y ex cep ti on s t o c u r e an un ti m el y as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, th e co ur t is pr ecl ud ed

fro m rev ie win g th at ti m el in es s de te rm in at io n on ap pe al ). Ju arez Ch il el do es no t rai se

an y “ co lo rab le co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es or qu es ti on s of la w, bu t in st ead

. . . [q ua rrel s]

wit h th e BIA’s d is cret io na ry fact ua l d et erm in at io n” th at he fai le d t o p ro ve ch an ge d

c o u n try ci rcu m st an ces to cu re hi s un ti m el y ap pl ic at io n, so we la ck juri sd ic ti on to

rev ie w whe th er Ju arez Ch il el ’s as y lu m cl ai m was ti m el y fil ed

. See Man an i v. Fi li p,

55 2 F .3d 89 4, 9 00 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot at io n a nd in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d)

.

b. Wi thho ld in g o f Remova l

Ju arez Ch il el al so so ug ht wit hh ol di ng of hi s rem ov al to Gua t e mala. The

on e-year de ad li ne fo r an as y lu m ap pl ic at io n do es no t ap pl y to a r eq ue st fo r

wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Mo ua wad , 48 5 F .3d at 4 11 . “ [T]he Att or ne y Gene ral

m ay no t rem ov e an al ie n to a co un try if th e Att or ne y Gen eral de ci de s th at th e al ie n’s

li fe or free do m wou ld be th reat en ed i n t h a t c ou nt ry be cau se of th e al ie n’s race

,

rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, or po li ti cal op in io n.”

8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). To qu al ify fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, Ju arez Ch il el m us t

sh ow th at he ha s ex pe rie nc ed pa st pe rs ecu ti o n on acco un t of on e of th os e

ch arac te ris ti cs or th at , b as ed on th at ch arac te ris ti c, th ere is “a c l ear pr ob ab il it y th at

hi s

. . . li fe or free do m wou ld be th reat en ed in th e pr op os ed co un try” if he were fo rced

to ret ur n. Mo ua wad

, 48 5 F.3 d at 41 1 (q uo ta ti on s an d in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d) ; se e

8 C .F.R. § 1 20 8.1 6( b) (1 ) an d (2 ).

-5

-“ A so ci al gr ou p req ui res su ffi ci en t pa rti cu la rit y an d vi si bi li t y su ch th at th e

gr ou p is pe rcei ve d as a co he si ve gr ou p by so ci et y .” Garci a v. Hol de r, 74 6 F.3 d 86 9,

87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ta ti on an d al te rat io n om it te d) ; se e 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A).

“ Mem be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p refe rs to pe rs on s who ho ld an im m ut ab le

ch arac te ris ti c, or co m

m on tra it su ch as se x, co lo r

, k i ns hi p, or

. . . sh ared pa st

ex pe rie nc es .” Garci a, 74 6 F.3 d a t 8 7 2 (q uo ta ti on an d al te rat io n om it te d)

. “ [T]he

vi si bi li ty req ui r e men t t e st s whe th er th e m em be rs of th e gr ou p are pe rcei ve d as a

gr ou p by so ci et y

, su ch th at th es e in di vi du al s su ffer fro m a hi gh er in ci de nc e of cri m e

th an th e res t o f th e p op ul at io n.” Id. at 87 3 (q uo ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

Befo re th e IJ

, Ju are z C h i l el co nt en de d he su ffer ed pa st pe rs ecu ti on an d was

co nc ern ed ab ou t fu tu re p ers ecu ti on be cau se he refu se d t o jo in a ga ng in Guat em al a

Ci ty. He as se rts he is pa rt of a “ so ci al gr ou p” m ad e up of in di vi du al s who are vi ct im s

of ga ng vi ol en ce. “ A gr ou p of pe rs on s de fin ed as th os e who su ffer vi ol en ce be cau se

th ey r e f u s e d to joi n cri m in al ga ng s la ck s th e vi si bi li ty an d pa rti cu la rit y req ui red to

co ns ti tu te a so ci al gr ou p fo r pu rp os es of 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A).” Orti z-Pu en te s

v. Hol de r, 66 2 F.3 d 48 1, 48 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al so Co ns ta nz a

v. Hol de r, 64 7 F.3 d 74 9, 75 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ [P]erso ns res is ta nt t o g a ng vi ol en ce

are to o di ffu se to be reco gn iz ed as a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p.” (Qu ot at io n om it te d) ).

Si m il arl y

, Ju arez Ch il el ha s of fere d no ev id en ce to su pp or t th e co nc lu si on th a t h is

pu rp or te d gr ou p— th os e who refu se to joi n a ga ng an d su ffer fro m th reat s of vi ol en ce

as a r e s ul t— sh ares “ a co m m on im m

ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c,” is “ de fin ed wit h

pa rti cu la rit y ,” or is su ff

i c i e n t l y so ci al ly di st in ct to qu al ify as a “ pa rti cu la r so ci al

gr ou p.” See Mat te r of M-E-V-G- , 2 6 I. & N. Dec . 2 27 , 2 37 ( 2 0 1 4 ) ( c l ari fy in g th at

“ an ap pl ic an t f

o r a s y lu m or wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al se ek in g rel ie f ba se d on

‘m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al g r o u p ’ m us t es ta bl is h th at th e gr ou p is

(1 ) co m po se d of m em

be rs who sh are a co m

m on im m ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c, (2 ) de fin ed

wit h pa rti cu la rit y

, an d (3 ) so ci al ly di st in ct wit hi n th e so ci et y in qu es ti on .”).

Acco rd in gl y , hi s wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al cla im fai ls

.

-6

-Fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

, Ju arez Ch il el as se rts th at he is p a r t of an ot he r

di st in ct so ci al gr ou p— th e Mam et hn ic gr ou p. W he n as ke d at th e he ari ng be fo re th e

IJ wha t la ng ua ge he sp ok e, Ju arez Ch il el sa id he sp ok e bo th Sp an is h an d t h e M a m

la ng ua ge

. Thi s is th e on ly refe ren ce in th e he ari ng reco rd to th e et hn ic Mam

. Mo re

to th e po in t, Jua rez Chi le l di d no t argu e to th e IJ th at he was part of th e Mam gr ou p

or th at hi s in cl us io n in th at gr ou p was a reas on fo r an y pa st or fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on fo r

hi m se lf or hi s fam il y

. By fai li ng to id en ti fy hi m se lf as a m em be r of th e Mam gr ou p

or ad dr es s it s ap pl ic ab il it y to hi s req ue st s fo r rel ie f be fo re th e IJ or BIA, Ju arez Ch il el

ha s fai le d to ex ha us t hi s adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s on th is is su e. Thi s cou rt th eref or e

do es n o t h a v e juri sd ic ti on ov er hi s cl ai m

. See Co ns ta nz a, 64 7 F.3 d at 75 4 n. 3

(“ ‘Fail ur e to rai s e a n is su e be fo re th e ag en cy co ns ti tu te s a fai lu re to ex ha us t

ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s an d de pr iv es th is co ur t o f juri sd ic ti on to he ar th e m at te r.’”

(q uo ti ng Su lt an i v . Gon zal es , 45 5 F .3d 87 8, 8 84 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) )).

In th e al te rn at iv e, Ju arez Ch il el arg ue s th at

, on ce he te st ifi ed th at he sp ok e bo th

Sp an is h an d Mam

, th e IJ ha d a du ty to de ve lo p th e reco rd reg ard in g t h i s po te nt ia l

so ci al gr ou p. Ju arez Ch il el co nt en ds th e IJ erre d by fai li ng to fo ll ow- up an d as k hi m

i f h e was al so a m em

be r of th e Mam et hn ic gr ou p or an ot he r et hn ic gr ou p i n

Gua te m al a an d th at th is erro r sh ou ld al lo w fo r rem an d. Any arg um en t th at th e IJ ha d

a du ty to de ve lo p th e reco rd on th is is su e was no t rai se d be fo re th e BIA. As a res ul t,

Ju arez Ch il el fai le d to ex ha us t hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed i e s

, a n d th is is su e is no t

pr op erl y be fo re us

. See Ly be sh a v. Hol de r, 56 9 F. 3d 87 7, 88 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )

(“ Pet it io ne rs di d no t rai se an y a l l e g a t i on of bi as in th ei r ap pe al

, ho wev er. By no t

rai si ng th is is su e be fo re th e BIA th ey fai le d to ex ha us t th ei r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s

an d de pr iv ed th is co ur t of juri sd ic ti on ov er th is cl ai m .”); se e al so 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )

(“ A co ur t m ay rev ie w a fin al or de r of rem ov al on ly if— (1 ) th e al ie n ha s ex ha us te d al l

ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s av ai la bl e to th e al ie n a s o f ri gh t . . . .”). 1

On ap pe al

, Ju arez Ch il el di sc us se s th e la nd feu d n e a r hi s ho m et own

, bu t he 1

fai ls to ex pl ai n h ow t hi s fe ud qu al ifi es hi m fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al . W hi le it is

-7

-c. Conv enti on Aga in st To rtur e

To rece iv e rel ie f un de r th e CAT, Ju arez Ch il el is no t req ui red to sh ow he

be lo ng s to a pr ot ect ed gr ou p; rat he r, he “ m us t de m on st rat e th at it is m or e li ke ly th an

no t th at [h e] wil l be to rtu red if re mo v e d t o G ua te m al a.” Garci a, 74 6 F.3 d at 87 3.

“ The to rtu re m

us t be ‘by or at th e in st ig at io n of or wit h th e co ns en t or acq ui es cen ce

of a pu bl ic of

fic ia l o r o t h e r pe rs on act in g in an of fic ia l cap aci ty.’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng

8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .18 (a)( 1) ). “ Dem on st rat in g acq ui es cen ce of a pu bl ic of fic ia l req ui res

pr oo f th at th e pu bl ic of

fic ia l, pr io r to th e act iv it y co ns ti tu ti ng to rtu re, ha ve aware ne ss

of su ch act iv i t y a n d th erea fte r br each hi s or he r le ga l res po ns ib il it y to in te rv en e to

pr ev en t s uc h a ct iv it y .” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Th i s in qu iry cen te rs up on th e wil lfu ln es s of a go ve rn m en t’s n o n

in te rv en ti on

. A go ve rn m en t do es no t acq ui es ce in th e to rtu re of it s

ci ti zen s m erel y be cau se it is aware of to rtu re bu t po werl es s to st op it

, bu t

it do es cro ss th e li ne in to acq ui es cen ce whe n it sh ows wil lfu l bl in dn es s

to ward th e to rtu re o f ci ti zen s b y th ird pa rti es

.

Id

. (q uo ta ti on s an d in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W hi le it m ay be th at “ th e Gua te m al an

go ve rn m en t is le ss th an su c c e s s f ul at pr ev en ti ng th e to rtu re of it s ci ti zen s by ga ng

m em be rs ,” th is co nc lu si on al on e do es no t m ean th at “ th e go ve rn m en t is wil l f u l ly

bl in d t owa rd it .” Id . at 8 74

.

Ju arez Ch il el as se rts th at th e al te rcat io n wit h m em be rs of th e Gua te m al a Ci ty

ga ng am ou nt ed to to rtu re, he f e a r s fu tu re to rtu re fro m ga ng vi ol en ce, an d th e

un cl ear if he rai se d th is is su e be fo re th e IJ

, it is ev id en t th at he ha s waiv ed it on

ap pe al

. See Mam

bwe v. Hol de r, 57 2 F.3 d 54 0, 55 0 n. 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ref us in g to

co ns id er an arg um en t no t rai se d in th e cl ai mant ’s op en in g br ie f in an im m ig rat io n

ap pe al ).

-8

-Gua te m al an go ve rn men t acq ui es ces in th e to rtu re of pe op le li ke hi m —t ho se who

res is t ga ng vi ol en ce. Yet he ha s of fere d no ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s as se rti on s. Ju arez

Ch il el to ld la w en fo rcem en t ab ou t h i s i n ju r y at th e ha nd s of ga ng m em be rs

, bu t he

ad m it s he ne ve r fo ll owe d up to de te rm in e whe th er th e y h a d t a ke n an y act io n in

res po ns e. W it ho ut m or e, Ju arez Ch il el ha s f a i l e d to pr es en t a cas e of wil lfu l

no n- in te rv en ti on by la w en fo rcem en t su ffi ci en t to m eet th e r e qu ire m en ts un de r th e

CAT. See Mar ro qu in -Och om a v. Hol de r, 57 4 F.3 d 57 4, 58 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (fi nd in g

th at th e ev id en ce sh owe d on ly weak

, in ex pe rie nc ed la w en fo r c e men t, no t th at th e

go ve rn m en t ac qu ie sc ed in ga ng act iv it y ). 2

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e rea so ns ab ov e, we de ny the pe ti ti on for rev ie w.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

As wit h hi s wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al cl ai m

, it is un cl ear whe th er Ju arez Ch il el 2

a r g u e d be fo re th e IJ th at he sh ou ld rece iv e CAT pr ot ect io n ba se d on an y u n r e s t

res ul ti ng fro m th e la nd feu d, bu t he ha s f a i l e d o n ap pe al to ex pl ai n ho w th e

Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t acqu ie sc es in an y to rtu re of its ci ti zen s bas ed on th is feu d.

It is

, th eref

or e, waiv ed

. See Mam

bwe

, 57 2 F.3 d a t 5 5 0 n

. 7. To th e ex te nt Ju arez

Ch il el as se rts

, fo r pu rp os es of h i s p e t i t i o n fo r pr ot ect io n un de r th e CAT, th at th e

Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t acq ui es ces in th e to rtu re an d pe rs ecu ti on of th e Mam et hn ic

gr ou p, th is cl ai m was no t rai se d be fo re th e IJ or B I A

, a n d we la ck juri sd ic ti on to

ad dr es s i t. See Doe v . Hol de r, 65 1 F .3d 82 4, 8 30 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

-9

-