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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 7- 37 80

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

Oral ia Ju arez -Co ro na do , no w kn own as Ora li a Ma ga li Marr oq ui n

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

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s 1

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

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Im m ig rat io n Law Pr of

es so rs

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

In te re st ed

pa rt y - Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Pet it io ne r

__ __ __ __ __ __

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: Octo be r 16 , 20 18

Fi le d: Marc h 2 9, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, KELLY, an d S TRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

1 W il li am P. Barr ha s be en ap po in te d to se rv e as Att or ne y Gen eral of th e Uni te d

St at es

, an d is su bs ti tu te d as res po nd en t p u rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of App el la te

Pro ced ur e 4 3( c).KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Oral ia Mag al i Mar ro qu in

, fo rm erl y kn own as Oral ia Mag al i Ju arez -Co ro na do

,

pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of a de ci si on of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) de nyin g

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

, wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, an d rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on

Aga in st Tort ur e (CAT). Bec au se we co nc lu de th at th e BIA’s de ci si on was su pp or te d

by sub st an ti al ev id en ce, we d en y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w.

I

Mar ro qu in is a ci ti zen of Gua te m al a an d is a m em be r of th e Mam et hn ic gr ou p.

Sh e en te red th e Uni te d St at es wit h he r m in or da ug ht er on Sep te m be r 25

, 20 14

. Afte r

Mar ro qu in was pl aced in rem ov al pr oc eed in gs

, sh e so ug ht as y lu m

, wit hh ol di ng of

rem ov al

, an d CAT rel ie f

. S h e cl ai m ed th at if sh e were ret ur ne d to Gua te m al a sh e

wou ld be pe rs ecu te d on acco un t of he r race

, na ti on al i t y, an d m em be rs hi p in th e

pr op os ed pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p of Gua te m al an wom en who are un ab le t o le av e a

do m es ti c rel at io ns hi p.

At a he ari ng be fo re an im m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ), Mar ro qu in te st ifi ed th at sh e ha d

su ffer ed do m es ti c vi ol en ce at th e ha nd s of he r da ug ht er’s fat he r, Mel vi n, an d fear ed

th a t i f s h e were ret ur ne d to Gua te m al a, Mel vi n wou ld hu rt he r an d ta ke away he r

da ug ht er. Mel vi n li ve d wit h Mar ro qu in in he r fam il y ho m e be twee n 20 09 an d 20 14

.

Dur in g th is ti m e, Mel vi n be at Mar ro qu in ap pr ox im at el y 14 ti m es

, in cl ud in g whe n sh e

was pr eg na nt wit h th ei r ch il d. Ove r th e co ur se of th ei r rel at io ns hi p, Mel vi n st ran gl ed

he r twi ce, o nc e to th e p oi nt wher e sh e co ul d n ot bre at he , and rap ed he r fo ur ti m es

.

Mar ro qu in to ld Mel vi n t o l eav e in May 20 14

, bu t he ret ur ne d to th e ho us e

m an y ti m es

, as k i n g h er to fo rg iv e hi m an d ge t ba ck to ge th er wit h hi m

. On on e

oc cas io n in Ju ly 20 14

, Mel v i n t h r e w he r on th e gr ou nd an d at te m pt ed to ta ke he r

-2

-c l ot he s of

f, bu t he ran away aft er Mar ro qu in ’s fat he r an d si st er-i n- la w cam e ho me

.

On Ju ly 28

, aft er th is in ci de nt

, sh e fil ed a po li ce rep or t. A jud ge is su ed a res tra in in g

or de r an d to ld Mar ro qu in th at it was va li d fo r si x m on th s. Afte r th e jud ge is su ed th e

res tra in in g or de r, Mel vi n co nt in ue d to co m e ov er to th e ho us e. If he fo un d Mar ro qu in

al on e, he wou ld be at an d th reat en he r. He to ld Mar ro qu in th at if sh e so ug ht he lp fro m

th e po li ce an d he was se nt to jail

, up on hi s rel eas e he wou ld co m e lo ok in g fo r he r an d

try to ki ll he r. Sh e cal le d th e po li ce on ce, bu t al th ou gh th ey cam e to lo ok fo r Mel vi n

th ey co ul d no t fin d hi m

. Sh e di d no t cal l th e po li ce ag ai n or go ba ck to th e jud ge th at

is su ed th e res tra in in g or de r. Mar ro qu in an d he r da ug ht er le ft fo r th e Uni te d St at es in

Sep te m be r 20 14

.

T he IJ de n ie d Mar ro qu in ’s req ue st ed rel ie f, fin di ng th at Mar ro qu in ’s t es tim on y

was no t c r e di bl e an d, in th e al te rn at iv e, th at sh e co ul d no t es ta bl is h el ig ib il it y fo r

as y lu m or wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al be cau se sh e co ul d no t sh ow th at th e Gua te m al an

go ve rn m en t was an d wou ld be un ab le or un wil li ng to pr ot ect he r fro m Mel vi n. The

IJ al so co nc lu de d th at Mar ro qu in ’s CAT cl ai m fai le d fo r th e in de pe nd en t reas on th at

sh e co ul d no t es ta bl is h th at th e Gua te m al a n g o ve rn m en t wou ld acq ui es ce to he r

to rtu re i f sh e were ret ur ne d to Gua te m al a. Marr oq ui n a pp eal ed to th e BIA, an d t he

BIA aff irmed.

The BIA ag reed th at Mar ro qu in ’s cl ai m s fo r as y lu m a n d wit hh ol di ng fai le d

be cau se sh e co ul d n ot sh ow th at th e Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t was an d wou ld be

un ab le or un wil l i n g to pr ot ect he r ag ai ns t Mel vi n, no ti ng th at sh e su cces sf ul ly

acq ui red a res tra in in g ord er and th at th e on e ti m e sh e cal le d th e po li ce th ey cam e to

lo ok fo r Mel vi n bu t co ul d no t fin d hi m

. The BIA al so up he ld th e CAT de ni al on th e

sa m e gr o u n ds rel ie d up on by t he IJ

. The BIA ex pr es sl y de cl in ed to reac h th e is su e

of cred ib il it y

.

-3

-II

On ap pe al

, Mar ro qu in arg ue s th at th e IJ erre d in he r cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n

an d in de nyin g al l rel ie f on th e m eri ts

. “ [B]ecau se th e BIA di d no t con si de r th e IJ ’s

cred ib il it y fin di ng s, th at is su e is no t pr op erl y be fo re us .” N jo n g v

. W hi ta ke r

, 91 1

F.3 d 91 9, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). And we wil l no t rev ie w an y cl ai m fo r rel ie f ba se d on

Mar ro qu in ’s pu rp or te d fear of pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of he r Mam et hn ic it y

, be cau se

it was no t rai se d be fo re or co ns id ered by th e BIA. See Mar ti ne z Carc am o v. Hol de r

,

71 3 F.3 d 91 6, 92 5 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) . Accor di ng ly, we rev ie w on ly the de te rm in at io n

th at Mar ro qu in fai le d to es ta bl is h pa st pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fear o f f u tu re

pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of he r m em be rs hi p in a pr op os ed pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p of

Gua te m al an wom en who can no t l eav e a rel at io ns hi p a nd th e d en ia l o f CAT rel ie f.

“ W e rev ie w th e BIA’s de ci si on

, as it is th e fin al ag en cy de ci si on ; ho wev er, to

th e ex te nt th at th e BIA ad op te d th e fin di ng s or th e reas on in g of th e IJ

, we al so rev ie w

th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s p art of t he fin al ag en cy act io n.” Dav il a-M ejia v. Mu ka se y , 53 1

F.3 d 6 24

, 62 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). “ W he n rev ie win g th e BIA’s fact ua l d et erm in at io ns

,

we em pl oy th e de fere nt ia l ‘sub st an ti al ev id en ce’ st an da rd .” Njon g

, 91 1 F.3 d at 92 2

(q uo ti ng Eus eb io v. Ash cro ft

, 36 1 F.3 d 10 8 8

, 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). Und er th at

st an da rd

, “ we m

us t affi rm th e BIA’s fact ua l de ci si on s un le ss

, aft er ha vi ng rev ie wed

th e reco rd as a who le

, we de te rm in e th at it wou ld no t b e p o s s i b l e f o r a reas on ab le

fact -fi nd er t o a do pt th e BIA’s p os it io n.” Eus eb io , 36 1 F .3d at 1 09 1.

We f in d no ba si s fo r gr an ti ng Mar ro qu in ’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w. To es ta bl i s h

el ig ib il it y fo r a s yl u m, Mar ro qu in m us t sh ow th at sh e m eet s th e de fin it io n of

“ refu ge e,” de fin ed as a pe rs on “ who is un ab le or un wil li ng to ret ur n to

, an d is un ab le

or un wil li ng to av ai l hi m se lf or he rs el f of th e pr ot ect io n o f

, [ h i s or he r co un try of

na ti on al it y ] be cau se of pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t

of race

, rel ig io n, na ti on al it y

, m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so c i a l g r o up

, or po li ti cal

op in io n.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 ). The pe rs ecu ti on “ m us t be in fli ct ed by a co un try’ s

-4

-go ve rn m en t or by pe op le or gr ou ps th at th e go v e r n men t is un ab le or un wil li ng to

co nt ro l.” Edi on se ri v. Sess io ns

, 86 0 F.3d 11 01

, 11 04 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). “ Bec au se th e

go ve rn m en t’s ab il it y to co nt ro l th e pe rs ecu to rs is a qu es ti on of fact

, we m us t up ho ld

th e ag en cy ’s fin di ng ‘unl es s an y reas on ab le ad jud ic a t or wou ld be co m pe ll ed to

co nc lu de to th e co nt rary.’ ” Ro m ero -Lari n v. Ses s i o n s

, 73 3 F. App ’x 8 47 , 8 50 (8 th

Ci r. 20 18 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (qu ot in g 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( b) (4 )(B) ).

Here, we can no t co nc lu de th at an y reas on ab le ad jud ic at or wou ld be co m

pe ll ed

to fin d th at th e Gua te m al a n g ov ern m en t was an d wou ld be un wil li ng or un ab le to

pr ot ect Mar ro qu in ag ai ns t Mel vi n. Mar ro qu in su c c e s s fu ll y ob ta in ed a res tra in in g

or de r ag ai ns t Mel vi n, an d it ap pe ars th at th e on ly ti m e sh e at te m pt ed to en fo rce it

, th e

po li ce res po nd ed to he r co m pl ai nt an d cam e to lo ok fo r hi m

. In de ed

, M a r r o q u i n

co nc ed es th at “ it is no t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t of Gua te m al a is un wil li ng to in te rv en e,

bu t th ey ha ve be en an d are un ab le to co nt ro l M e l v in .” Bu t th e fact th at th e po li ce

co ul d no t fin d Mel vi n whe n sh e so ug ht t o e n f o r c e th e pr ot ect iv e or de r do es no t

co m pe l th e co nc lu si on th at th e Gua te m al an au th or it ie s were un ab le t o p r ot ect he r,

es p e c i a ll y in li gh t of th e fact th at sh e ne ve r so ug ht th ei r ai d ag ai n. See Gut ie rrez

Vid al v. Hol de r

, 70 9 F.3 d 72 8, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (s ub s t a n t i a l e vi de nc e di d no t

in di cat e go ve rn m en t was una bl e or un wil li ng to co nt ro l p riv at e act or s whe re po li ce

in ve st ig at ed in ci de nt s an d m ad e a r r e st s, ev en th ou gh pe ti ti on er co nt en de d

in ve st ig at io ns were “ m in im al an d fru it le ss ”). Acco rd in g ly, we can no t ov ert ur n th e

ag e n c y ’s de te rm in at io n th at Mar ro qu in co ul d no t es ta bl is h el ig ib il it y fo r as y lu m

. 2

2 Amici cu ri ae arg ue th at th ere is a te ns io n in ou r cas e la w be t w e e n a l i n e o f

cas es th at st at es th at a pe ti ti on er m us t sh ow th at th e go ve rn m en t “ co nd on e d ” th e

pe rs ec uto r ’s act io ns or was “ co m pl et el y he lp le ss ” to pr ot ect th e pe ti ti on er an d an oth e r

li ne of cas es th at si m

pl y ex am in es whe th er a pe ti ti on er can sh ow th at th e go ve rn m en t

is un ab le to pr ov id e effe ct iv e pr ot ect io n. To th e ex te nt th at th ere i s s uc h a te ns io n,

we ne ed no t res ol ve it he re, as Mar ro qu in ha s co nc ed ed t h a t t h e go ve rn m en t was

wil li ng to pr ot ect he r an d su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e co nc lu si on th at th e

Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t was no t u na bl e to pro vi de pro te ct io n.

-5

-And be cau se Mar ro qu in can no t sa ti sf y th e lo wer bu rd en of pr oo f req ui red to es ta bl is h

el ig ib il it y fo r as y lu m

, it fo ll ows th at sh e can no t es ta bl is h el ig ib il it y fo r wit hh ol di ng

of rem ov al

. Id

.

Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce a l s o s u p p o r ts th e ag en cy ’s de ni al of CAT rel ie f. To

es ta bl is h e li gi bi li ty for CAT rel ie f, Mar ro qu in m us t sh ow th at it is m or e li ke ly tha n

n ot th at sh e wil l be su bjec te d to to rtu re if ret ur ne d to Gua te m al a. S e e 8 C

. F

. R

.

§ 20 8.1 6( c)(2 ); Gul ed v. Mu ka se y

, 51 5 F.3 d 87 2, 88 1 (8 th C i r

. 20 08 ). “ Tort ur e”

wit hi n th e m ean in g of CAT m us t be “ in fli ct ed by or at th e in st ig at io n of or with th e

co ns en t or acq ui es cen ce of a pu bl ic of fic ia l or ot he r pe rs on a c t i n g in an of fic ia l

cap aci ty.” 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .18 (a)( 1)

. “ 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 s h o ws wil lfu l bl in dn es s to ward th e to rtu re

of ci ti zen s b y t h i r d p a r ti es .” Mo ua wad v. Gon zal es

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

20 07 ) (cl ean ed up ). The re is no ev id e n c e i n th e reco rd th at if Mar ro qu in were

r e t u r n e d to Gua te m al a th en th e Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t wou ld to rtu re he r or b e

wil lfu ll y bl i n d t o he r to rtu re at th e ha nd s of Mel vi n. Thu s, we can no t ov ert ur n th e

ag en cy ’s det erm in at io n t ha t M arro qu in di d n ot est ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for CAT rel ie f.

The pe ti ti on for rev ie w is de ni ed

.

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

-6

-