## FIL ED NOV 3 0, 2 011 LEO NARD GREEN, Clerk NOT RECOMMENDED F OR P UBLICATION

File Na me: 11a0798n.06
No. 10-3063
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

Gonzalo C. P ere z-M orales,
P etitioner ,

v. Eric H. Holder , J r., United States Attor ney Ge neral , Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION FOR REV I EW OF AN O R D E R O F T H E B O A R D O F I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

BEFORE: MERRITT, BOGG S, and CLAY, Circ uit Jud ges.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Gonzalo Perez-Mora les seeks revie w of a decision of t he Boa

rd of I mmigra

tion Appea ls dated Dec ember 31, 2009. I n that decision, the Boa rd dismiss ed Perez-Mora les’s appea l and aff irmed the decision of the I mmigra tion Judge deny ing his applications for

asy lum and withholding of remova l unde r the I mmigra tion and Nationality Act, 8
U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) (1), 1231(b)( 3)(A) (1965), and protec tion under the United Nations Convention 1 Aga inst Torture

. Perez-Mora les seeks revie w on the following g rounds: (1) an incom p l et e 2

P e r e z - M o r a l e s ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a s y l u m a n d w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l a r e g o v e r n e d b y t h e R E A L I D A c t ’ s 1
a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e I m m i g r a t i o n a n d N a t i o n a l i t y A c t

. S e e R E A L I D A c t o f 2 0 0 5 , D i v . B

. o f P u b

. L

. N o
. 1 0 9

- 1 3 , 1 1 9 S t a t

. 2 3 1

. S e e U n i t e d N a t i o n s C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s t T o r t u r e a n d O t h e r C r u e l , I n h u m a n , o r D e g r a d i n g T r e a t m e n t o r

2 P u n i s h m e n t , 1 4 6 5 U

. N

. T

. S

. 8 5 , G

. A

. R e s
. 3 9 / 4 6 , 3 9 t h S e s s
. , U

. N

. G A O R S u p p
. N o
. 5 1 , U

. N

. D o c
. A / 3 9 / 5 1 , a t 1 9 7 , ( D e c
. 1 0 , 1 9 8 4 )

.No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older
transcr ipt of his remova l proceeding denied him due proce ss of law by preve nting him from establishing that an extraordinary circ umstance excused his del ay i n fi ling for asy lum; (2) the
I mmigra tion J udg e and the Boa rd both err ed in finding that he fa iled to qualify for withholding of

remova l beca

use it is more likely than not that he will be perse cuted if he returns to Guatema la; and (3) the I mmigra tion Judge and the B oard a lso erre d in finding tha t he was ine ligible for protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture be cause it is more li kely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Guatema la. Although we are sy mpathetic to Perez-Mora les’s plight, his arg uments are unconvincing . Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the B oard’ s decision. I. Background
Perez-Mora les i l l ega l l y enter ed the United States on Fe bruar y 14, 1997. On October 8,

3 2005, the Depa

rtment of Homeland Security serve d Perez-Mora les with a Notice t o Appea r in immigra tion court to contest the char g e th at he was remova ble pursuant to the I mmigra tion and Nationality Act as an alien prese nt in the United States who had been neither admitted nor parole d.
S ee 8 U.S .C. § 1182(a) (6)( A)(i)

. On Marc h 1, 2007, Perez-Mora les jointly filed applications fo r

a s y lu m, w ithholding of remova l, and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture

. H e th e r e a f te r testified in support of his applications on Marc h 19, 2008. The I mmigra tion J udg e denied all three

. Wit h respe ct to his application for asy lum, the judge deter mined that he had failed to show either a chang ed or extraordinary circ umstance that would excuse his delay in filing o u t s i d e the one-y ear window. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a) (2), (4), (5) (2011). T h e j u d ge d en ied on the merits his

P e r e z - M o r a l e s i n i t i a l l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e h a d e n t e r e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o n O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 0 0 , b u t t h e r e a f t e r 3
a d m i t t e d t o t e l l i n g t h e C u s t o m s a n d B o r d e r A g e n t t h e w r o n g d a t e w h e n h e w a s a r r e s t e d

. ( P e t i t i o n e r ’ s B r i e f a t 4

. ) -2-No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older applications for withholding of remova l and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture

. On
appea l, the Boa

rd af firmed the I

mmigra tion J udg e’s de cision. This petition followed.
II. Discussion 1. Standard of Re view
Be cause the Boa

rd issued a s e p a

r a te o p in io n r a

th e r th a n s ummarily aff

irming the I mmigra tion
J udg e’s decision, we revie w the Boa rd’s decision as final. See Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). Howeve r, we also examine the I mmigra tion J udg e’s decision to the extent that the
Boa rd adopted its rea soning. See id. ; Patel v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir. 2006). We revie w questions of law de novo and any fac tual deter minations under a substantial evidenc e standard. See Khalili , 557 F.3d a t 435. 2. Denial of

Due Proc ess Perez-Mora les asser

ts that an incomplete transcr ipt of his remova l proce eding violated his due proce ss rig hts by deny ing him meaning ful appellate revie w. We have jurisdiction to revie w the
Boa rd’s finding s rele vant to this issue beca use Perez-Mora les raises a constitutional claim. See Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006)

. Specifica lly , he conte nds that a larg e number of “indiscer

nible notat i o ns” precluded him from arg uing that the i neff ective assistance of his prior counsel constituted an “extraordinar y circ umstance” justify ing his considera ble delay in filing for asy lum. (Petitioner’s Br ief at 14.) Acc ordin g to Perez-Mora les, a complete transcr ipt would have allowed him to meet the require ments for asser ting such a claim. See Matter of Lozada , 19 I &N Dec

. 637, 639 (B I A 1988). This conclusion misconstrues the conditions set forth in Lozada.
Even if a complete transcr ipt had aided it, his claim on appea l would nonetheless have been -3-No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older
proce durally defic ient. He did not submit to the Boa rd an aff idavit detailing his ag ree ment with his former attorney or show that the attorney had b ee n i nformed of the alleg ations and g iven an opportunity

to respond. See Lazar v. Gonzale s , 500 F.3d 469, 476 ( 6th Cir. 2006).
Moreove r, we ag ree with the conclusion of both the I mmigra tion J udg e and the Boa rd that
Perez-Mora les has failed to show that omissions in th e t ra nscript prejudiced hi m. Due process in this context require s a petitioner to es t ab l i s h t h at “a complete and acc urate transcr ipt would have chang ed the outcome of the case .” Garza-More no v. Gonzales , 489 F.3d 239, 242 (6th Cir. 2007). Such was not the case here

. Even conce ding that Perez-Mora les detrimentally relied on the advice of an attorney who told him, in 1997, that he was ineligible to apply for political asy lum – and that this constituted an “extraordina ry ci rcumstance” justify ing an initial postponement in filing – it
cannot ex plain why

Perez-Mora les waited a

nother ten y ear s befor e making his asy lum claim. We
ag ree with the I mmigra tion J udg e and the Boa rd that this was an unrea sonably long delay

. See Fang Huang v. Mukase

y , 523 F.3d 640, 651 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) (a ff i rming denial of petitioner’s asy lum application and rea soning that petitioner’s eig hteen- mo n th delay in filing her asy lum application was

unrea sonable). 3. Denial of Application for Withholding of Remova l
Perez-Mora les next contends that b o t h the I mmigra tion J udg e and the Boa rd improperly denied his application for withholding of remova l. Wit hholding of remova l is mandatory if an alien establishes that his “life or fre edom will be threa tened in the proposed country of remova l on acc ount of rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion.” See INS

v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 411 (1984) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)( 1)). Perez-Mora les asser ts that g ang s -4-No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older in Guatema la targ et y oung men for the purpose of rec ruiting them. He also asser ts that g ang s hara ss and perpe trate crimes ag ainst Christians and other “chur ch g oing people.” (Petitioner’s Br ief at 20.) Thus, Perez-Mora les’s status as “a y oung Christian male o f Guatema la,” rende rs him doubly vulnera ble to g ang violence. Id. Acc epting his statements as t ru e an d h i s fears as leg itimate, we nonetheless ag ree with the I mmigra tion J udg e and the Boa rd that this social g roup lacks the requisite particula rity and socia l visibi lity

. See A l-Ghorbani v. Holder , 585 F.3d 980, 994 (6th Cir. 2009). Membership in such a g roup would encompa ss a collection of individuals too amorphous and varie d to share a “common, immutable cha rac teristic.” Bonilla-Morales v. Holder , 607 F.3d 1132, 1137 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Castellano-Chacon v. I.N.S. , 341 F.3d 533, 546 (6th Cir. 2003)). Moreove r, the g ang members who hara ssed Perez-Mora les befor e he left Guatema la did so for monetary g ain, not be cause Perez-Mora les was a y oung male or a Christian. He has there fore failed to e stablish a

nexus betwee n his prior harm and any statutori l y p rot ecte d g round. Acc ording ly , substantial 4
evidenc e supported the denial of his application for re moval.

4. Denial of

Convention Ag ainst Torture Prote ction Finally , Perez-Mora les arg ues that the I mmigra tion J udg e and the Boa rd err ed in finding that he is not entitled to protec t ion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture

. He believes that the

P e r e z - M o r a l e s a l s o a s s e r t s f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e o n p e t i t i o n t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t h e a n d t h e o t h e r m e m b e r s o f h i s 4 i m m e d i a t e f

a m i l y c o n s t i t u t e a p r o t e c t e d s o c i a l g r o u p t h a t g a n g s h a v e t a r g e t e d i n t h e p a s t a n d w i l l m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t t a r g e t i n t h e f

u t u r e
. W h i l e P e r e z - M o r a l e s a n d h i s f a m i l y w e r e t h e v i c t i m s o f h a r a s s m e n t a n d t h e f t , “ r a n d o m c r i m i n a l a c t [ s ] ”

– e s p e c i a l l y i n a c o u n t r y s t r u g g l i n g w i t h p e r v a s i v e c r i m i n a l l a w l e s s n e s s

– a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r a f i n d i n g o f p e r s e c u t i o n
. L u m a

j v
. G o n z a l e s , 4 6 2 F

. 3 d 5 7 4 , 5 7 7

- 7 8 ( 6 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 6 )

. P e r e z - M o r a l e s h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t g a n g m e m b e r s t a r g e t e d h i m a n d h i s f

a m i l y o n t h e b a s i s o f a p r o t e c t e d s t a t u s
. M o r e f u n d a m e n t a l l y , P e r e z - M o r a l e s f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h i s c l a i m b e f

o r e t h e B o a r d a n d h a s t h u s d e p r i v e d t h i s c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w i t

. S e e R a m a n i v
. A s h c r o f t , 3 7 8 F

. 3 d 5 5 4 , 5 5 8 ( 6 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 4 ) ( r e a s o n i n g t h a t “ t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t [ p e t i t i o n e r ] h a s f a i l e d t o e x h a u s t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s , t h i s c o u r t d o e s n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d d r e s s t h o s e c l a i m s ” )

. -5-No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older Guatema lan g overnme nt is corr upt and unable or unwilling to protec t h i m and others from g ang violence. Thus, acc ording to Perez-Mora les, his return to Guatema la will cre ate a strong likelihood that g ang members will torture him as a result of g overnme ntal acquie scenc e. Acquiesc ence by a public officia l trig g ers Convention Ag ai n s t Torture protec tion if “the public officia l, prior to the activity constituting torture, h a [s ] awa rene ss of such activity and there afte r brea ch[es] his or her leg al responsibility to intervene to preve nt such activity .” 8 C

. F. R

. § 1208.18(a) (7). I n Guatema la, howeve r, the g overnme nt has taken steps to addre ss the country ’s g ang problem. We ag ree with the
Boa rd that difficulty in curbing g ang violence is hardly commensura te with tacit consent or willful blindness to that viole n ce
. The I mmigra tion J udg e and the Boa rd appropr iately denied PerezMorales’ s Convention Aga inst Torture application.
I n light of the fore g oing, the decision of the B oard is AF FI RMED.

-6-No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older CLAY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join the majority ’s opinion to deny Perez-Mora les’s petition. I n doing so, as observe d by the majority , we revie w quest ions of law de novo and any fac tual deter

minations under a substantial evidenc e standard. Be y ond the discussion of the standard of revie w and statement of fac ts se t forth by the majority , I write separ ately reg arding cer tain other leg al and f

actua l bases for

the denial of

the petition.
I. Due P roce ss Due proce ss “dema

nds a rea sonably acc urate and complete transcr ipt to allow for me a n ing ful appellate revie w and to allow the alien to mount a challeng e to the proce eding s conducte d befor e the
I J .” Shewchun v

. Holder , 658 F.3d 557, 569 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Sterkaj v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 273, 279 (6th Cir. 2006) ). Howeve r, an “er ror in the rec ord or tra

nscript does not by itself prese nt a due pr ocess violation.” Sterkaj , 439 F.3d 273 a t 279 n2. The gove rnment i s obliga ted t o prepa re a “re asonably acc urate and complete rec ord of the

remova l heari n g. ” S t er ka j , 439 F.3d at 279; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (4). Upon revie w of the I J
transcr ipt, Perez-Mora les is corr ect to point out the 149 “indiscer nable” notations in the transcr ipt; howeve r, Perez-Mora les “bea rs the heavy burden of proving prejudice in order to show a due proce ss violation in an immigra tion hear ing.” Shewchun 658 F.3d at 569 (citing Garza-More no v. Gonzales , 489 F.3d 239, 241–42 ( 6th Cir. 2007)). A re view of the rec ord shows that Perez-Mora les has not
met his burden to prove how the incomplete transcr ipt cause d actua l prejudice that would chang e the
outcome of the case
. Whil e the “indiscer nable” notations are a distraction, one may rea sonably infer the re sponses provided by Perez-Mora les.

-7-No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older Perez-Mora les alleg es that a complete transcr ipt would support his ineffe ctive assistance of counsel claim. Howeve r, upon revie w of the transc ript, this claim appear s to be without merit. I t is possible to fully compre hend the details of the meeting with the attorney , and there is no evidenc e
to support Perez Morales’ s ineffe ctive assistance of counsel claim. Fur ther, it is possible to infer that a meeting took place with an attorney in Detroit but Perez-Mora les was unable t o re call the name of the attorney

. The attorney purportedly told Per ez-Morale s that he could not f ile for asy lum, but

no further explanation was provided. A revie w of the transcr ipt indicates that Perez-Mora les did not descr ibe in detail how his persona l experience s in Guatemala support his application for a sy lum.
II. Withh oldin g of Rem oval
Perez-Mora les also cl ai ms that he is elig ible for withholding of remova l beca use he experience d perse cution on acc ount of his membership in a social g roup, which he define s as y oung , Christian males susceptible to rec ruitment into the Guatema lan g ang s. Perez-Mora les su bmits

co u n t ry repor

ts, news article s, and other country specific information published by the Stat e Depa rtment about the pre sence of gang s in Guatemala as we ll as the problem of police corr uption

as evidenc e that he would be perse cuted on the basis of his membership in a social g roup. He arg ues that these article s demonstrate a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution and that it is unsafe for him
to return to his native country

. Perez-Mora les al so ref ere nces repor

ts that discuss how g ang s specific ally

targ et and a ttack Christians.
We revie w an I J ’s interpre tation of country conditions for whether th e I J rea ched a “re asonable conclusion.” Koulji nski v. Keisler , 505 F.3d 534, 544 (6th Cir. 2007). The applicant is require d to identify “evide nce that compels the opposite conclusion” befor e we d isturb the I J ’s -8-No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older
trea tment of country condition repor ts. Id

. at 544. I n the instant case , the I J proper ly considere d the country specific information and conclude d that the Guatema lan g overnme nt substantially reduc ed fea rs of perse cution by controlling the g ang problem. The country repor ts and news article s are
unpersua sive as it is unclea r how these repor

ts support Perez Morales’ s perse cution claim. Additionally , the l etter submit ted by Perez-Mora le’s si ster merely discusses a fea r of f uture c rime but it doe s not ide ntify specific instances of g ang violence upon the family to support his claim for
asy lum. These re p o r

ts n e it h er corr oborate Perez-Mora les’s fea r of g ang activity nor compel a finding that its more likely than not that Perez-Mora les would fac e perse cution if he returne d to Guatema la. III. Convention Again st Torture Under the CAT, remova l must be withheld if it is “more likely than not” that [t he applicant] would be tortured if remove d to the proposed country of remova l. 8 C.F.R. § 1208. 16(c) (2). I n order to suc cee d on a withholding of remova l claim, an applica nt “must show a ‘cle ar probability ’ of perse cution.” Dugboe v. Holder , 644 F.3d 462, 472 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F. App’ x 631, 640–41(6th Cir. 2005)).
I f the BI A adopts the I J ’s decision, as in the prese nt case , den y i n g P er ez -Mora les’s withholding of remova l claims under the I NA and the CAT, we revie w “the I J ’s decision direc tly to deter mine whether the decision of the BI A should be upheld on appea l.” Amir v. Gonzales , 467 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2006). We must uphold the I J ’s denial of wit hholding under t he C AT unl ess i t is “manifestly

contra ry to the law.” Ali v. Reno , 237 F.3d 591, 596 ( 6th Cir. 2001).
Perez-Mora les contends that the I J err ed in its decision to deny his claim for protec tion under
CAT. First, he states that the I J ignor ed evidenc e o f go v ernme nt corr uption, which he claims -9-No. 10-3063

Perez- Morales v. H

older d irec tly impacts the country ’s ability to reduc e g ang -re lated criminal activity

. Second, Perez

Morales states that the BI

A incorre ctly conclude d that the g overnme nt’s involvement to reduc e g ang activity remove s any duty to protec t him from harm. Pere z-Morales ar g ues that the g overnme nt’s

awa rene ss actua lly “bolsters [hi s] claim of acquie scenc e by the Guatema lan g overnme nt.” Even if the g overnme nt has taken preve ntative measure s to reduc e g ang activity , Perez-Mora les still did not
meet his burden of showing that the Guatema lan g overnme nt willfully acc epts the g ang involvement
in criminal activity

. Perez-Mora les “mu s t do more than show that the officia ls are awa re of the activity but a

re power less to stop it

. He must de monstrate that

. . . officia ls a re willfully acc epting of the g uerillas’ t o rt u ro u s activit ies.” Amir , 467, F.3d at 927 (interna l citation omitted). I n the
p re s ent case , the g overnme nt’s commitment to reduc e g ang violence is not an indication th at i t acquie sces or is acc epting g ang violence, but r ather is e vidence of the g overnme nt ta king action to
preve nt future c riminal activity in the country

.

-10-