T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

Th e H o n o r ab l e D o n a l d E. W a l t e r , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orW e s t e rn L oui s i a na , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T EDI RE NA TO M ORALES - M ENDEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , Jr . , A tt orney G ener al R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70232 A ge nc yN o. A 72 142 331 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P et i t i on for R evi ew of an O rderof the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d and S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r14, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: N O O N A N and B E A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W A L T E R , D i stri ctJudg e. ** E di R e na t o M or a l e s - M e nde z ( “ M or a l e s - M e nde z ” ) , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the de c i s i on bythe B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” ) a f

f irm in g ad e c is io n o f

th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ( “I J ” ) to d e n yh is appl i c a t i ons f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on 

# FI LED DE C 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A ga i ns tT ortur e . T hi s C ourtha s j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the a ge nc y ’ s or de rof r e m ova l pur s ua ntt o 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 1) . W he r e the B I A a dopt s the I J ’ s de c i s i on w h ile a d d in g its o w n r e a s o n in g , w e r e v ie w b o th d e c is io n s . S i o n gv . I NS , 376 F . 3d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e v ie w f o rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . L olon g v. G on zales , 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ( e n b a n c ) . W e grantre vi ew and revers e the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM oral es -M endez w as no tsubj ec t ed t o p as tpers ec ut i on because he f ai l ed t o sho w the nexu s r equi re d to m e e t th e d e f

in itio n o f r e f u g e e . W e d is a g r e e . M o r a le s - M e n d e z w a s f o r c ib ly ki dn apped b y gueri l l as i n G uat em al a and hel d capt i ve for am on th w here he w as to rtu r e d a n d in te rr o g a te d ab o u t h is r e la tio n s h ip w ith th e G u a te m a la n m ilita ry . T h is is s u f f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o n th e b a s is o f ap r o te c te d g r o u n d . R i os v . A s h c r o ft , 2 8 7 F .3 d 8 9 5 , 9 0 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) . A l though w e f

i nd tha tM or a l e s - M e nde z ha s de m ons tr a t e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on w e c anno tconcl ud e thatthe re cord com pel s afi nd i ng thathe has are as on abl e f ear of f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. H i s ow n t e s t i m onye s t abl i s he s tha thi s f e a rof r e turni ng t o G u at em al a i s d u e t o w i d esp read g en eral i zed v i o l en ce p erp etrat ed b y streetg an g s, notthe gue r i l l a s . W e the r e f or e de nyr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de c i s i on a f

f i rm i ng the I J ’ s de ni a l of

a s y l um . F orthe s a m e r e a s ons , w e f i nd tha tthe r e c or d doe s not c om pe l af

i ndi ng tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nottha tM or a l e s - M e nde z w i l l be3

pe r s e c ut e d ort ortur e d upon r e turn t o G ua t e m a l a . W e a f f i rm the B I A ’ s f

i ndi ngs tha tM or a l e s - M e nde z f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha the i s e l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l o rr e lie f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e . W e r e m a nd f

orthe B I A t o c ons i de rw he the rM or a l e s - M e nde z i s e l i gi bl e f or ah u m a n ita r ia n g r a n t o f

a s y lu m in lig h t o f

o u rr e v e r s a l r e g a r d in g p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . T h e ag en cy h as d i scret i o n t o g ran th u m an i t ari an asyl u m t o v i ct i m s o f p ast pers ec ut i on w ho se fe arof future pers ec ut i on has bee n rebutt ed i f the pet i t i on er e s tab lis h e s ( 1 ) c o m p e llin g r e a s o n s f o rb e in g u n w illin g o ru n ab le to r e tu rn to h is co u n try ari si n g o u to f th e sev eri ty o f th e p astp ersecu t i o n , o r (2 ) th ere i s a r e a s o n ab le p o s s ib ilityth a t h e m a ys u f f e r“o th e rs e r io u s h a rm ” u p o n r e m o v a l. 8 C . F . R . § 1208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i i i ) . T he “ othe rs e r i ous ha rm ” ne e d notbe r e l a t e d t o a p r o te c te d g r o u n d . Moh am m adv. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 801 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A p e titio n e ris r e q u ir e d o n lyto e s tab lis h o n e o f th e s e f a c to r s to b e c o n s id e r e d f

o rh u m a n ita r ia n a s y lu m . I d. W e r e m a nd f

orf urthe rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s di s pos i t i on. PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW G R A N TED I N PA R T; D EN I ED I N PA R T; R E M A N D E D .