NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2222

___________ CA RL OS T UR CI OS - OC AM P O, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 96 047 136) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 1, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay26, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM C a rlo s T u rc io s-O c a m p o p e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

a B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) deci s i on di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l of an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ngT ur ci os - O campo w as al s o char ged w i th bei ng s ubj ectt o r emoval beca us e he s ought 1 orhad s oughtt o pr ocur e a vi s a, otherdocument at i on, oradmi s s i on i nt o the U ni t ed St at es byfr aud orbyw i l l ful l ym i s r epr es ent i ng a mat er i al fac t . T ur ci os - O campo di d notconce de that he i s r em ov able on t his basi s. 2 h i s a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o rr e l i e f f r o m r e mo v a l . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T ur ci os - O campo i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of H ondur as w ho has l i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es s i nce 1988. I n 2006, w hen Turc i os - O campo w as r eturni ng t o the U ni t ed St at es f ro m M e x ico , im m ig ra tio n o f f ice rs in ter v iew e d h im d u e to c o n c e rn s w ith h is document at i on. I m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed and Tur ci os - O campo concede d thathe i s s ubj ectt o r emoval beca us e he di d nothave a val i d entrydocumentatthe t i m e he a p p l i e d f o ra d mi s s i o n t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . Tu r c i o s - Oc a mp o a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, 1 w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”), assert i ng a fear of p ers ecuti on on accou nt of hi s poli t i cal op i nion. T urci os-O cam po al so pr epar ed an appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , w hi ch the I J found unt i m el yand p re te rm itte d . T ur ci os - O campo t es t i fi ed thati n 1986, w hi l e att endi ng col l ege i n H ondur as , he v is ite d th e U n ite d S ta te s s e v e ra l tim e s to d o tr a n s la tio n w o rk f o r U n ite d S ta te s o f

f ic ia ls . T ur ci os - O campo al s o j oi ned a r i ght - w i ng democr at i c gr oup, the Fr ent e U ni do U ni ver s i t ar i o D emocr at i co ( “FU U D ”) , w hi ch oppos ed the l eft i s tgr oup, Fr ent e de R e f o rm a U n iv e rs ita ri a (“ F R U ” ). A t th is tim e , T u rc io s -O c a m p o a ls o w o rk e d a t a h o te l. H e meta hot el gues tnamed M r . L amb, w ho T ur ci os - O campo bel i eved w as pr om ot i ng3

d e m o c ra c yin th e re g io n . L a m b h ir e d T u rc io s -O c a m p o to tr a n s la te c o m m u n ic a tio n s . T ur ci os - O campo t es t i fi ed thathe i s afr ai d t o r eturn t o H ondur as now beca us e of th e rise o f

p o w e rf u l d ru g lo rd s a n d g a n g m e m b e rs, w h o w e re F R U m e m b e rs a n d m a in tain th e i rp o l i t i c a l v i e ws . Tu r c i o s - Oc a mp o e x p l a i n e d th a ti n 1 9 9 6 h e r e tu rn e d t o h i s h o me to w n a n d m e m b e rs o f

a f a m ilyn a m e d N u n e z , w h o o p p o se d th e F U U D , thr e a ten e d h im a n d to ld h im to re tu rn to th e U n ited S tate s. T u rc io s-O c a m p o sta ted th a t N u n e z f a m ily m e m b e rs th re a ten e d th e liv e s o f h is f a m ilym e m b e rs a n d sto n e d h is u n c le’ s h o u se in H on du ras . T urci os-O cam po l eftthe co un tryi m m ediat el yaft er r ecei ving these t hreat s. T u rc io s-O c a m p o b e liev e s th a t h e w a s th re a ten e d b e c a u se o f h is tra n sla tio n w o rk in the 1980' s . H e expl ai ned thathe w as a fr i end of J or ge N unez, w ho t ol d hi s r el at i ves about hi s w or k. T ur ci os - O campo st at ed thats i nce 1996 the thr eat s have c ont i nued aga i ns tother fami l ym ember s i n H ondur as and thatthe mostr ece ntthr eatw as i n 2005 w hen y oung m al es t or e dow n a fe nce hi s uncl e w as bui l di ng on hi s pr operty . H e al s o s t at ed thathe knew s om eone w ho w orked forthe U ni t ed St at es governm entw ho w as ki l l ed w hen he re tu rn e d to H o n d u ra s in 2 0 0 5 . T u rc io s-O c a m p o d o e s n o t b e liev e th a t h e w o u ld b e sa f e in a n yp a r to f

Ho n d u r a s b e c a u s e th e d ru g d e a l e r s h a v e c o n n e c t i o n s a l l o v e rth e c o u n try . On c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , T u rc io s-O c a m p o c o n c e d e d th a t, de sp ite th e th re a ts m a d e a g a in st h im in 1 9 9 6 , h e h ad return ed to H o n d u ras a p p rox im atelyten tim es, alth o u g h h e d id n o t r eturn t o hi s hom e t ow n. T ur ci os - O campo al s o conce ded thathe di d notappl yforas y l um aft er the 1 99 6 o r 2005 threat s.T he I J al s o deni ed Turc i os - O campo’ s C A T appl i cat i on. T hi s rul i ng i s notati s s ue. 2 4 T he I J concl uded thatT ur ci os - O campo had notm ethi s bur den of pr oof foras y l um orw i thhol di ng of r emoval . T he I J expl ai ned thatT ur ci os - O campo had nots ubm i t t ed any evi dence corr obor at i ng hi s t es t i m ony . T he I J al s o s t at ed thatanyverbal thr eat s di d not rise to th e lev e l o f

p e rse c u tio n a n d th a t h is n u m e ro u s v isits to H o n d u ra s b e lied h is c laim thatthe ent i r e countryi s danger ous t o hi m . T he I J al s o ques t i oned w hetherthe N unez fami l yw oul d s t i l l w antt o harm T ur ci os - O campo. T he I J furtherfound no pr oof thatthe N u n e z f a m ilyis a g ro u p th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to c o n tro l. 2 O n appea l , the B I A hel d thatthe I J di d noterri n fi ndi ng thatT ur ci os - O campo fa il ed to m ee t his bu rde n o f p roo f f o r asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. T h e B IA agr eed w i th the I J thatthe thr eat s and s t oni ng of hi s uncl e’ s hous e di d notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. T he B I A al s o not ed thatT ur ci os - O campo di d notr eportanyi nci dent s of harm t o author i t i es and thatthe I J had found thathe di d nots how thatthe harm he s u f f e re d w a s in f

lic te d b yf

o rc e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s u n a b le o r u n w illin g to c o n tr o l. T h e B IA a lso sta ted th a t T u rc io s-O c a m p o d id n o t sh o w th a t h e w a s u n a b le to re lo c a te to anotherpartof H ondur as , not i ng thathe had r eturned t o H ondur as w i thouts uffe r i ng any h a rm . T h e B IA f

u rth e r h e ld th a t th e IJ d id n o t er r in n o tin g T u rc io s-O c a m p o ’s f a ilu re to s u b m it c o rr o b o ra tiv e e v id e n c e . T u rc io s-O c a m p o a lso u n su c c e ss f u llyc h a llen g e d o n a p p e a l th e IJ’ s d e c isio n to p r e t e r mi th i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o rc a n c e l l a t i o n f

o rr e mo v a l . No t i n g th a tth e r e g u l a t i o n s a l l o w a5

jud g e to s et t im e li m it s fo r th e f il ing o f a p p li ca ti o n s an d related d o cu m en ts, the B IA expl ai ned thatthe I J t ol d the part i es ata hea r i ng on J anuary25, 2007, thatal l appl i cat i ons had t o b e fi l ed ten day s befo re the S eptem ber 18, 2007 , m eri t s heari ng , bu tT urci osO campo pr es ent ed hi s canc el l at i on appl i cat i on and s uppor t i ng document at i on atthe m e rits h e a rin g . T h e B IA a lso re jec ted T u rc io s-O c a m p o ’s r e late d d u e p ro c e ss c laim . T h is pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. T u rc io s-O c a m p o a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d in a f f irm in g th e IJ’ s d e c isio n to pr et erm i thi s canc el l at i on of r emoval appl i cat i on. T ur ci os - O campo as s ert s thathe a p p e a r e d a tth e J a n u a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , h e a r i n g wi th h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , b u tth e I J d i d n o ts t a mp the appl i cat i on i nt o evi dence beca us e he ha d y ett o paythe fi l i ng fee . T ur ci os - O campo s t at es thathe pai d the fe e more than a mont h befor e hi s Sept ember18, 2007, hear i ng dat e, butthe fe e r ece i ptw as notr ece i ved unt i l aft erthe hea r i ng. B eca us e he ha d notr ece i ved the r ece i ptand w as thus unabl e t o getthe nec es s aryfi ngerpr i nt s , T ur ci os - O campo st at es that o n S ep tem b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , h e so u g h t an a d jou rnm en t of

h is up co m ing h ea ri n g , b u t th e IJ deni ed hi s m ot i on. T ur ci os - O campo r ecogni zes thatthe I J al s o found thathe had not tim e lyf iled h is s u p p o rtin g d o c u m e n ts, b u t ar g u e s th a t th e re g u latio n s d o n o t sta te th a t a fai l ure t o fil e do cum ents or obtai n a fe e recei pt w i l l res ulti n the w ai ver of an otherw i se tim e lya p p lica tio n . T u rc io s-O c a m p o c o n ten d s th a t th e IJ’ s re f u sa l to e n ter tain h is app l i cat i on viol at ed h i s r i gh tt o d ue p rocess . T he admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d r efl ect s thatT ur ci os - O campo’ s couns el s t at ed he di d notU nder8 C . F. R . § 1003. 31( b) , an appl i cat i on r equi r i ng the paym entof a f ee mustbe 3 acc om pani ed bya fe e r ece i ptfr om the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyorbyan a p p lica tio n f

o r a w a iv e r o f

f e e s w h e n f

iled in th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt. 6 h a v e h is a p p lica tio n s f

o r re lief re a d ya t a h e a rin g h e ld o n Ju ly1 3 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e IJ to ld co u n sel t o b ri n g them to the n ex t hea ri n g o r th eyw o u ld b e c o n side red ab an d o n ed . T h e IJ s t at ed thatfi ngerpr i nt i ng had t o be done a nd the fe e had t o be pai d. T he nexthear i ng 3 w as hel d si x m on ths l at er on Janu ary25 , 20 07 . C ou nsel st at ed thathe h ad a “b are- bo nes” canc el l at i on appl i cat i on, buthe di d nothave the s uppor t i ng document s orfee r ece i pt . T he I J advi s ed Turc i os - O campo t hathe w oul d enfor ce the court ’ s t en- dayrul e, r equi r i ng that a ll s u b m is s io n s b e m a d e a t le a s t te n d a y s b e f o re th e h e a ri n g . O n the d ayo f th e m erit s h ea ri n g o n S ep tem b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , T u rcios-O ca m p o ’s l aw y ert ol d the I J that , as a r es ul tof an e rr ori n hi s offi ce, he had j us ts enti n the appl i cat i on fee and fi ngerpr i nt i ng fee . C ouns el br oughtt o the hea r i ng the ca ncel l at i on app l i cat i on and supp ort i ng do cum ents , w hich the IJ s t at ed h e w ou l d n ot consi der becau se he had notcompl i ed w i th the t en- dayrul e. T he I J as ked couns el w hyhe w as pr ovi di ng th e a p p lic a tio n o n th e d a yo f th e h e a ri n g a n d c o u n s e l r e p lie d , “ ... I t h o u g h t it w a s f ile d . I th o u g h t e v e ryth in g w a s d o n e .” A .R . a t 8 1 . B ase d o n thes e f

ac ts, the B IA d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in co n clud ing that the IJ di d noterri n pr et erm i t t i ng the ca ncel l at i on appl i cat i on. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 31( c) ( author i zi ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge t o s ett i m e l i m i t s forthe fi l i ng of appl i cat i ons and r el at ed document s and t o deem w ai ved the opportuni tyt o fi l e an appl i cat i on ordocument7

n o t fi led w ith in the ti m e se t) ; see a lso D ed ji v . M u k ase y , 5 2 5 F . 3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 1 (2d C ir . 2008) ( r evi ew i ng appl i cat i on of 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 31( c) forabus e of di s cr et i on) ; K han v. A t t ’yG en. , 44 8 F . 3d 22 6, 23 3 (3d C i r. 20 06 ) ( den i al of a c on t i nu ance review ed fo r abuse o f d iscreti o n is no t distu rbe d u n less itis “arb itrary , irrati o n al, o r co n tr aryto law ”). A l though T ur ci os - O campo st at es thathe t i m el yfi l ed hi s canc el l at i on appl i cat i on butnot h is s u p p o rtin g d o c u m e n ts, th e re c o rd d o e s n o t re f lec t th a t T u rc io s-O c a m p o c o m p lied w ith the court ’ s t en- dayrul e. W e al s o agr ee w i th the G overnm entthatT ur ci os - O campo does nothave a cogni zabl e due pr oces s cl ai m beca us e he ha s no cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es ti n the di s cr et i onaryr el i ef of canc el l at i on of r emoval . See, e. g, Pi nos - G onzal ez v. M ukas ey , 519 F. 3d 436, 441 ( 8th C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng s ame) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. T orr es, 38 3 F . 3d 92 , 10 4-05 (3d C i r. 20 04 ) ( ho l ding al i ens do no thav e a du e process i nt er es ti n bei ng cons i der ed fordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef) ; Pi nho v. I . N . S. , 249 F. 3d 183, 189 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o ld in g c h a n g e in e lig ib ility c ri te ri a f o r s u s p e n s io n o f

d e p o rt a tio n , a d iscreti o n aryfo rm o f re li ef , d id n o t i m p li ca te du e p roc ess righ ts) . T ur ci os - O campo al s o chal l enges the deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . W e r evi ew the age ncy ’ s fi ndi ngs undera s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, w hi ch r equi r es thatw e uphol d the age ncy ’ s fi ndi ngs unl es s the evi dence c o m p e ls a c o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n . S h a rd a r v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 2 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T u rc io s-O c a m p o c o n ten d s th a t h e e sta b lish e d th a t th e th re a ts to h im se lf a n d h is f

a m ily cons t i tut ed pas tper s ecut i on and thatthe G overnm entdi d notr ebutthe pr es um pt i on of8

futur e persecut i on . T he B IA , ho w ever, con cl ud ed thatthe v erbal threat s agai nstT urci osO campo and hi s fami l yand the s t oni ng of hi s uncl e’ s hous e di d notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. See Fat i n v. I . N . S. , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( s t at i ng per s ecut i on requi res threat s t o li fe so severe that theycon st i tute a threatt o li fe or freedom ). T urci osO cam po po i nts t o n o ev i den ce com pell i ng a con trarycon cl usi on . B ecause T urci osO campo di d notes t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on, a pr es um pt i on of futur e per s ecut i on does not a p p ly. T ur ci os - O campo al s o chal l enges the I J ’ s char act er i zat i on of hi s cl ai m as “s t al e” b e c a u s e h e t e s t i f

i e d t o e v e n t s th a to c c u rr e d mo r e th a n twe n tyy e a r s a g o . T h e BI A, how ever , di d notm ent i on s t al enes s as a r eas on forconcl udi ng thatT ur ci os - O campo fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. W her e, as her e, the B I A offe r ed i t s ow n anal y s i s and di d notadoptal l of the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs , w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on, notthe dec i s i on of the IJ. V o ci v. G o n za les, 4 0 9 F . 3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Fi nal l y , T ur ci os - O campo di s put es thathe ca n m ove t o a partof H ondur as out s i de hi s hom e t ow n. H e cont ends that , al though he has vi s i t ed H ondur as , thes e bus i nes s tr i ps w er e onl yforone ortw o w eeks ata t i m e. H e ar gues thatH ondur as i s a s m al l countryand thathe w oul d be di s cover ed i f he r emai ned fora l ong t i m e. T ur ci os - O campo has not s how n thatthe evi dence compel s the conc l us i on thathe ca nnotm ove t o anotherpartof H ondur as . W e agr ee w i th the G overnm entthathi s num er ous tr i ps t o H ondur as runT he B I A err ed i n ci t i ng 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) ( 1) ( B ) t o s uppor tthe conc l us i on that 4 T u rc io s -C a m p o s f

a ile d to s h o w th a t h e c o u ld n o t r e lo c a te to a n o th e r p a rto f H o n d u ra s . T hi s s ubs ect i on appl i es w her e an a l i en has es t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on. T he B I A m ay h av e inten d ed to cite § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(2 ), w h ich a p p li es to fu ture thre ats o f p erse cu ti o n . In a n ye v e n t, th e B IA ’s r e c o g n iti o n o f th e f a c t th a t T u rc io s-C a m p o s h a d re tu rn e d to H ondur as s uppor t s i t s concl us i on thathe di d notes t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof p e rs e c u tio n . count ert o a cl ai m of a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on. 4 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.