N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R ENE ALVAR O M A R TINEZ-AVELAR , Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-71275 Age n c y No. A094-799-109
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

17, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, GOULD, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. The Pe titione r, R e ne Alva ro M artine z -Ave la

r, is a form e r polic e offic e r from El Sa lva dor se e king a sy lum due to a n atta c k he suffe re d at the ha nds of the M ara Sa lvat ruc ha (“ M S” ), an inte rna tiona l ga ng a c tive in El Sa lva dor. In 2006, M S
m e m b e rs c a m e to M artine z -Ave la

r’ s hom e , whe re he ran a ge ne ra l store , and thre a te ne d him

a t gunpoint; the

y wa nte d him to provide the m

ongoing informa tion 

# FIL ED
M AY 10 2016 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.a

bout the prose c u tion of c e rta in ga ng m e m be rs, provide those ga

ng m e m b e rs provisions from

his ge n e ra l store , a

nd e m p loy a ga n g m e m be r a t his store . The y
a lso hit a nd kic ke d M artine z -Ave la r and thre a te ne d to kill him if he we n t to the polic e . M artine z -Ave la

r did not re port the inc ide nt to thepolic e , but we nt to sta y in a villa ge until here signe d from his position a s polic e offic e r and, soon
a fte rward, le ft the c ountry . The B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) ove rturne d the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ’ s” ) de c i sion gra nting a sy lum . M artine z -Ave la r pe titione d for re v ie w. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. 1. The re c ord doe s not c om pe l the finding tha

t the ha rm M artine z -Ave la

r suffe re d wa s on a c c ount of a sta tutorily -prote c t e d ground. C onc e rning his politic a l opinion c la im , M artine z -Ave la r fa ile d to a

rgue in his ope ning brie f, and the re fore ha s forfe ite d, the argum e nt tha t he wa s pe rse c ute d ba se d on his politic a l opinion. C ruz v . Int’l C

o l le c tion C

orp. , 673 F.3d 991, 998 (9th C ir. 2012). M artine z -Ave l ar doe s a rgue tha t he wa s pe rse c ute d ba se d on a n im pute d politic a l opinion, but the
re c o rd fa ils to c om

pe l the c onc l usion tha

t M artine z -Ave la

r’ s atta c ke rs im

pute d a politic a l opinion to him
. Se e C ruz-N av arro v . IN

S , 232 F.3d 1024, 1029–30 (9th C ir. 2000). Although one of the a tta c ke rs sa id tha

t the y should kill M a

rtine z Ave la r be c a use he wa s a

“ d og,” whic h wa s unde rstood to m e an polic e m an, this lone sugge stion— soon re fuse d by the le a d e r of the group— doe s not indic ate tha t 2the g ang m e m be rs im pute d a n “ anti-ga ng” politic a l be lie f to M artine z -Ave la r. Se e id. Additiona l ly , the re c ord doe s not c om pe l the finding tha

t a ny im p ute d politic a l opinion wa s a

“ c e ntra l re a son” for the a tta c k: the y single d out M a

rtine z -Ave la

r a s a polic e m an be c a

use the y wa nte d inform a tion from som e one who would be e ffe c tive in he lping the m , not due to a politic a l opinion. Se e Parussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th C ir. 2009). M artine z -Ave la

r a lso a rgue s tha t re l ie f is wa

rra n te d on the ba sis of his
m e m b e rship in a

soc i a l group a s a

c urre n t a nd now form e r polic e offic e r. M artine z -Ave la

r fa ile d to a

rgue in his ope ning brie f that he should be prote c te d ba se d on his sta

tus a s a polic e offic e r at the tim e of the a tta c k, forfe iting the
argum e nt. Se e C

ruz , 673 F.3d a

t 998; De v e re aux

v . Abbe y , 263 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba

nc ). C onc e rning his sta

tus a s a form e r polic e offic e r, M artine z -Ave la

r ha s not shown a

ny e vide nc e of atta c ks ba se d on tha t sta tus. The
a tta c k he suffe re d whe n he w a s a polic e offic e r c an be c onside re d to the e x te nt it inform s the ana ly sis of whe t he r he m ight be a tta c ke d going forwa rd due to his sta tus a s a form e r polic e offic e r. C

f. Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 503–04 (9th C ir. 2013). Howe ve r, the pa st a tta c k a p pe ars to ha

ve be e n m otiva

te d by the M S m e m be rs’ de sire to obta in inform a tion privy to a c urre nt polic e offic e r. B e c a use he is now a

form e r offic e r without the sa m e inform ation, thee vide nc e of 3the p rior atta c k doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t a n atta c k will oc c ur in the future due to M artine z -Ave la r’ s sta tus a s a form e r polic e offic e r. 2. In a ddition, the

re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the gove rnm e nt is unwilling or una ble to a s sist M artine z -Ave la r. S e e N av a s v . IN S , 217 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th C i r. 2000). Although M artine z -Ave la r ne ve r file d a polic e re p ort a

nd wa s not re quire d to do so to obta in re lie f, se e Afriy i e v . Holde r , 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th C ir. 2010), the e vide nc e in the re c ord, whic h inc lude s sta

te
re ports a nd M artine z -Ave l ar’ s te stim ony , is m ixe d on the issue and, the re fore , doe s not c om pe l ove rturning theB IA’ s de te rm ination. The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D
.

4