# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 15 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Enri qu e Lop ez-M en de z

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 12 Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 9, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , SMITH an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

On Ju ne 8, 20 09 , an i m

m ig rat io n ju dg e (IJ ) de ni ed Enri qu e Lop ez-M en de z’s

ap pl ic at io n fo r as yl u m a nd wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. The Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) di sm is se d Lop ez-M en de z’s ap pe al on May 31
, 20 11
, an d den ie d hi s

m ot io n to reo pe n hi s rem ov al pr oc eed in gs on Ja nu ary 31
, 20 12

. Lop ez-M en de z
req ue st s we rev ie w al l th ree de ci si on s. The BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in d ecl in in g to reo pe n Lop ez-M en de z’s pr oc eed in gs , an d we no w la ck juri sd ic ti on t orev ie w di rect ly th e two earl ie r de ci si on s. See Bo ud ag ui an v. Ash cro ft, 37 6 F.3 d 82 5,

82 7 (8 th Cir . 20 04 ). Lop ez-M en de z’s rev ie w pet it io n i s d en ie d.

I. BACKGRO UND Lop ez-M en de z, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Gua te m al a, en te red th e Uni te d St a t e s wit ho ut be in g adm it te d or p aro le d i n 2 00 0. In 200 3, th e Uni te d Stat es Im m ig rat io n

a n d Natu ral iz at io n Serv ic e (INS) ch arg ed Lop ez-M en de z wit h rem ov ab il it y un d e r 1
Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act § 21 2( a)(6 )(A)(i ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (A)(i ). Lop ez-M en de z so ug ht as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov a l b a s ed on th reat s he cl ai m ed he rece iv ed fro m ga ng m em be rs or fo rm er gu eri ll as in Gua te m al a se ek in g to

co erce Lop ez-M en de z in to joi ni ng th ei r ga ng

.

A. IJ Deci si on an d In iti al BI A Appea l On Ju ne 8, 20 09
, t h e I J d e ni ed Lop ez-M en de z as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of

rem ov al

. On May 31
, 20 11
, th e BIA affi rm ed th e IJ ’s de ni al of rel ie f be cau se Lop ezMen de z’s “ pa st fear of ga ng m em be rs , who ne ve r ph y si cal ly ha rm ed hi m , di d no t ris e
to th e le ve l of pa st pe rs ecu ti on , an d

. . . he fai le d to es ta bl is h a ne xu s be twee n hi s fear of pe rs ecu ti on an d a n e nu m erat ed gro un d.” The BIA exp la in ed Lop ez-M en de z d id

no t “ es ta bl is h[ ] th at ga ng m em be rs wil l se ek hi m ou t, or th at th ey are m ot iv at ed by

an y th in g ot he r th an to in crea se th e ran ks of th ei r ga ng , o r bo ls te rin g th ei r cri m in al

act iv it y .” The BIA st at ed th at in di ge no us Gua te m al an s, su ch as Lop ez-M en de z, are

“ su bjec t to se ve re di sc riminat io n,” bu t fo un d Lop ez-M en de z di d no t de m on st rat e “ a
pa tt ern or pr act ic e of pe rs ecu ti on b y t h e go ve rn m en t or fo rces th e go ve rn m en t is ei th er un ab le or un wil li ng to co nt ro l.” See 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .13 (b )(2 )(i ). The BIA al so de ni ed pr ot ect io n un de r th e Uni te d Nati on s Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e (CAT), se e 8 C .F.R. § 2 08 .16 , bas ed on “ in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ug ge st th at [Lop ez-M en de z]

The INS ceas ed to ex is t in 20 03
, whe n “ it s e nf or cem en t fu nc ti on s were 1
tra ns ferr ed to th e Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y .” Cam is hi v. Hol de r, 61 6 F.3 d 88 3, 8 84 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.
-2

-was to rtu red in Gua te m al a or th at an y go ve rn m en t of fic ia l in Gua te m al a wou ld ei th er
to rtu re h im

up on hi s re tu rn or a cq ui es ce i n h is to rtu re b y ot he rs .”

Lop ez-M en de z di d no t pe ti ti on ou r co ur t fo r rev ie w of th e BIA’s May 31
, 20 11 de ci si on or th e ear l i e r I J de ci si on wit hi n th irt y da y s, as req ui red by 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( b) (1 ).

B. Mot io n to Reop en Pro ceed in gs On Ju ly 25
, 20 11
, Lop ez-M en de z m ov ed to reo pe n hi s rem ov al pr oc eed in gs
pu rs ua nt to 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .23 (b )(1 ), as se rti ng “ a m at eri al ch an ge of ci rcu m st an ces in th at th e th reat s to [Lop e z -Me nd ez were] on go in g” an d “ ba se d on [Lop ezMen de z’s] race , na m el y th at he is an in di ge no us pe rs on of Gua te m al a.” In su pp or t, Lop ez-M en de z at ta ch ed two le tt ers as ex hi bi ts

. A tra ns la to r Lop ez-M en de z hi red in di cat ed th e fi rs t l et te r rea d, i n p art

You are an in di ge no us a[-- ----] an d we do n’t li ke it whe n y ou sp eak y ou r di al ect [.]

W e ga ve y ou th e op po rtu ni ty to joi n ou r ga ng bu t y ou di dn ’t wan t to so th at is why we are wait in g fo r y ou to cu t y ou r he ad of f an d th en to m ak e y ou di sa pp ear fo rev er, we wan t to te ar y ou to pi eces , to rtu re y ou an d pu t lo ts of b ul le ts in y ou [.]

The se co nd le tt er pu rp or te dl y rep eat ed th e th reat s, bu t di d no t ex pl ai n th e writ er’s

m ot iv at io n.

The BIA de ni ed Lop ez-M en de z’s m ot io n to reo pe n th e pr oc eed in gs on Ja nu ary 31
, 20 12
, fin di ng Lop ez-M en de z di d no t sh ow reo pe ni ng hi s pr oc eed in gs li ke l y

wou ld res ul t in a di ffer en t ou tc om e. The B IA fo un d t he un si gn ed le tt ers va gu e an d

“ th ey st il l do no t es ta bl is h a ne xu s be twee n th e th reat s an d a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd .” The
BIA ex pl ai ne d th e fir st let te r st at ed th e th reat s were m ot iv at ed by Lo pe z-M en de z’s refu sa l to joi n th e ga ng , whi ch th e BIA no te d “ do es no t co ns ti tu te a pa rti cu la r so ci al

-3

-g ro up .” Fi na ll y , th e BIA st at ed th e le tt ers di d “ no t de m on st rat e a ch an ge in

Gua te m al a, bu t rat he r a co nt in ua ti on of th e ci vi l st rif e an d cri m in al a c t i v i t y t ha t [Lop ez-M en de z] has fear ed si nc e h e le ft t he co un try in 2 00 0.”

Lop ez-M en de z ap pe al s (1 ) th e IJ ’s de ni al of hi s ap pl ic at io n; (2 ) th e BIA’s de ni al of Lop ez-M en de z’s in it ia l ap pe al ; an d (3 ) th e BIA’s de ni al of Lop ez-M en de z’s

m ot io n t o re op en hi s p ro ceed in gs

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N
Bec au se Lop ez-M en de z di d no t fil e a ti m el y pe ti ti on in ou r co ur t to rev ie w th e BIA’s in it ia l or de r in hi s cas e, “ [o ]ur juri sd ic ti on is li m it ed to rev ie w of th e BIA or de r de nyin g [Lop ez-M en de z’s] m ot io n to

. . . reo pe n th e as y lu m pr oc eed in gs .”
Bo ud ag ui an , 37 6 F .3d at 8 27 ; s ee al so 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b )(1 ).

“ A m ot io n to reo pe n pr oc eed in gs sh al l st at e th e ne w fact s th at wil l be pr ov en
at a he ari ng to be he ld if th e m ot io n is gr an te d

. . . . [ a n d ] sh al l no t be gr an te d

un le ss

. . . [th e] evi de nc e so ug ht to be off ered is m at eri al an d was no t avai la bl e an d

co ul d no t ha ve be en di sc ov ered or pr es en te d at th e fo rm er he ari ng .” 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(1 ). W e rev ie w th e BIA’s de ni al of su ch a m ot io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See B ou da gu ia n, 3 76 F.3d at 8 27

.

The BIA ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it s de ci si on is “ wit ho ut rat io na l

ex pl an at io n, de pa rts fro m es ta bl is he d po li ci es , inv idi ousl y dis cr im ina te s ag ai ns t a pa rti cu la r race or gr ou p, or whe re th e ag en cy fai ls to co ns id er al l fact or s pr es en te d by th e al ie n or di s t o r t s i mpo rta nt as pe ct s of th e cl ai m .”

Kan y i v. Gon zal es , 40 6 F.3 d 10 87
, 10 89 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Fel ek e v. INS, 11 8
F.3 d 5 94 , 59 8 (8 th Cir . 19 97 )).

-4

-Lop ez-M en de z as se rts th e BIA erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to reo pe n be cau se

th e fir st le tt er sh ows ga ng m em be rs “ are cl earl y pe rs ecu ti ng [Lop ez-M en de z] ba se d

on hi s m em

be rs hi p in ” an in di ge no us gr ou p. See 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (i) (req ui rin g an app li can t fo r as y lu m to pr ov e “ race , rel ig io n, nat io na li ty, m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r s o c i al gr ou p, or po li ti cal op in io n was or wil l be at le as t on e cen tra l

reas on fo r pe rs ecu ti ng th e ap pl ic an t” )

. Th e BIA was en ti tl ed to rel y on th e

ex pl an at io n in th e fir st le tt er th at th e le tt ers ’ th reat s st em m ed fro m Lop ez-M en de z’s refu sa l to joi n th e ga ng an d co ul d reject Lo p e z

- M en de z’s pr op os ed al te rn at iv e

ex pl an at io n. Fu rth er, “ pe rs on s res is t a n t t o g a n g vi ol en ce are to o di ffu se to be

reco gn iz ed as a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p.” Co ns ta nz a v. Hol de r, 64 7 F.3 d 74 9, 75 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Bec au se th e le tt ers do no t

un de rm in e th e BIA’s in it ia l de te rm in at io n th at Lop ez-M en de z fai le d to es ta bl is h a

we ll- fo unded fear of pe rs ecu ti on ba se d up on an en um erat ed gr ou nd fo r rel ie f, th e BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de ci di ng Lop ez-M en d e z f ai le d to sa ti sf

y hi s he av y

ev id en ti ary bu rd en to reo pe n th e rem ov al pr oc eed in gs

. Bo ud ag ui an , 37 6 F

. 3d at 2
82 9; see als o 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) , 12 31 (b )(3 )(A); 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 1)

.

Lop ez-M en de z al so co nt en ds t h e BIA ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s

m ot io n to reo pe n be cau se “ th e ph y si cal th reat s of vi ol en ce were m uc h m or e de ta il ed in th e le tt ers th an th ey

ha d b een in th e p as t.” Th e p ur po rte d a dd it io na l d et ai l in th e le tte rs do es no t affe ct ou r an al y si s be cau se Lop ez-M en de z’s in ab il it y to pr ov e a ne xu s be twee n th e th reat s an d a p r o te ct ed gr ou nd pr ecl ud es gr an ti ng hi m as y lu m or wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . See 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (i) , 12 31 (b )(3 )(A).

Sep arat e an al y si s of Lopez -M en de z’ s CAT cl ai m was no t req ui red be cau se th e 2

ne w let te rs di d n ot su gg es t Lo pe z-M en de z “ m ig ht be to rtu red fo r reas on s u nr el at ed
t o [h is ] cl ai m s fo r as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al .” Alem u v. Gon z a l e s , 4 0 3 F.3 d 5 72 , 57 6 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ).

-5

-II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e de ny an d di sm is s Lop ez-M en de z’s rev ie w p e t i t io n se ek in g to reo pe n hi s

rem ov al pro ceed in gs

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-