N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. B LADIM IR

M AR TINEZ, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50205

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00117-B EN-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm itte d August 1, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd WARDLAW , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd W H YTE, ** Distric t Judge
. B la dim ir M artine z (“ M artine z ” ) a ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc e for be ing a re m ove d a lie n found in the Unite d State s in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. 

# FIL ED MAR 10 2017 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 ona ld M
. W hyte , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

M artine z ’ s
c onvic tion. 1 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing M artine z ’ s m otion to dism iss the inform a t ion. M artine z m ove d to dismiss on theground tha t his 2012 re m ova l, a pre d ic a te e l e m e nt of the c ha rge a ga inst him , wa s funda m e nta lly unfa ir. S e e 8 U.S.C . § 1326(a ), (d). To de m onstra te funda m e n ta l unfa irne ss, M a

rtine z m ust show (1) tha

t the re m o va l proc e e ding viola te d his due proc e ss rights a nd (2) tha t he suffe re d pre

judic e a s a re sult. Unite d State s v . Re y e s-Bonilla , 671 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th C ir. 2012). W e n e e d not de c ide whe the r the proc e e d ing viola te d M artine z ’ s due proc e ss rights, be c a

use he c annot e sta

b lish pre judic e . He wa s not pre

judic e d be c a use the re we re no “ ‘ pla

usible grounds’ on whic h he c ould ha ve be e n grante d
re lie f from

re m ova l” in 2012. Se e id. a t 1049. B e c a use of his 2010 c o nvic tion for a n a ggrav a te d fe lony , M artine z wa s ba rre d from obta ining a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, or disc re t iona

ry form s of
re lie f. Se e id. a t 1050. Theonly re lie f for whic h

he wa s e ligible wa s de fe rra l of
re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). Se e id. To obta in re lie f, M artine z would ha

ve ne e de d to show tha

t, unde r the c irc um sta

n c e s p r e s e n

t i n 2 0 1 2 ,

1 In a c onc urre ntly

file d opinion, we

va c a te M artine z ’ s se nte nc e be c a u se the distric t c o urt re c e i ve d a

nd a nswe re d a que stion from

the jury during de libe ra tions in viola tion of Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 43 a nd the Sixth Am e n dm e nt. 2i t w a s “ m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t ” t h a t h e w o u l d b e t o r

t u r e d u p o n r e m o v a l t o G

u a t e m a l a
w i t h t h e c o n s e n t o r a c q u i e s c e n c e o f a p u

b l i c o f f i c i a l
. S e e 8 C
. F
. R
. § § 2 0 8
. 1 6 ( c ) , 2 0 8
. 1 7 ( a) ; C o l e v . H o l d e r , 6 5 9 F
. 3 d 7 6 2 , 7 7 0

– 7 1 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 1 1 )
. M artine z c ould not ha

ve m a de tha

t showing in 2012. W hile M artine z pre s e nts e vide nc e tha

t, be fore le a ving Gua

te m a la in 2005, he re c e i ve d

de a th thre a ts from fe llow ga ng m e m be rs for re fusing to c om

ply with the ir de m ands, the se thre a ts we re too va g ue and re m ote in tim e to e sta blish tha t he wa s like ly

to be torture d upon his re turn in 2012. M ore o ve r, the re c ord sugge sts tha t M artine z live d in Gua

te m a la without inc ide nt for som e tim e a fte r the thre a ts we re m a de
. The re fore , the va gue thre a ts c ould not c onstitute pa st torture tha

t would ha

ve ra ise d
an infe re nc e of future torture . C f. 8 C
. F.R
. § 208.18(a )(4)(iii) (sta ting tha t torture
e nc om pa sse s m e nta l ha

rm c a use d by “ [t] he thre a t of im

m ine nt de a th” ); Hox ha v

. Ashc roft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha t unfulfille d thre a ts we re insuffic ie nt to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c u tion for purpose s of a s y lum , whic h ha s a lowe r sta nda rd of proof tha

n for C AT prote c tion). M artine z argue s tha

t the pre se n c e of a

pa rtia lly re m ove d ga

n g ta ttoo on his body m a de it “ m ore like ly

tha n not” tha t he would be torture d upon his re turn to Guate m a la . Howe ve r, M artine z ’ s ta ttoo is inc onspic u ous a

nd e a sily c o ve re d by

a shirt. The re fore , it wa s unlike ly to m a ke him

a ta rge t for atta c ks. C

f. Andrade

v . 3Ly nc h , 798 F.3d 1242, 1245 (9th C ir. 2015) (sta ting tha t ga n g ta ttoos m ay provide support for a

C AT c la im

whe n the y

are c onspic uous). Furthe rm ore , the c ountry
c onditions re

p o rts M artine z c ite s de sc ribing ga ng viole nc e in Gua

te m a l a d o not, without m ore , indic a te tha t M artine z him se lf wa s like l y to be a ta rge t of the viole nc e . Se e Go v
. Holde r , 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th C ir. 2011) (sta ting tha t while “ c ountry

re ports c onta in[e d] ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e sugge sting a re lative ly high le ve l of m istre a tm e nt a nd a buse ” in the c ountry

of re m ova l, the “ spe c ific
c irc um s ta nc e s ” of the pe titione r’ s c a se did not indic a te tha t he would be ha

rm e d or
m istre a t e d). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing M artine z ’ s re que st for an e vide ntia ry he aring. C re diting a l l of M artine z ’ s e vide nc e , M artine z c annot
e sta blish tha t his 2012 re m ova l wa s funda m e nta lly unfa ir be c a

use he c annot show that any a lle ge d due proc e ss viola tion pre judic e d his a

bility to obta in re l ie f. The re fore , he wa s not e n title d to a n e vide ntia

ry he aring. Se e Unite d State s v . Irw in , 612 F.2d 1182, 1187 (9th C ir. 1980) (“ [I] f the a ffida vits show a s a

m a tte r of la w tha t a ppe lla nt wa s or wa s not e ntitle d to re lie f, no he aring wa s re quire d.” ). AFFIRM E D.

4