2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-14-2010 

# Ron ald Alb e r t o Za

valet a-Lop e z v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3673

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ron ald Albe r t o Za

vale t a -L opez v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2060. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2060I M G - 054 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. 08- 3673

___________ RO NA LD A LBERTO ZAV ALETA - LOPEZ, 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 e s p o n d e n t

____________________________________ 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 98- 797- 024) 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)

D ece m ber16, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, R O T H and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary14, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Al mos ti mme d i a t e l ya f

t e rRon a l d Al b e r t o Za v a l e t a - Lo p e z , a c i t i z e n o f El Sal vador , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i thouti ns pect i on i n 2005, the G overnm entchar ged h i m wi th r e mo v a b i l i ty . Co n c e d i n g th e c h a r g e , Za v a l e t a - Lo p e z s o u g h ta s y l u m,2

w ith h o ld in g , a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). I n hi s aff i davi ti n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on, Z aval et a- L opez s t at ed thathe had been r obbed more than once and thr eat ened bythe “mar as ” organgs . R . 190. H e not ed o n e in c id e n t in p a rticu lar in w h ich th e m a ra s ro b b e d a n d a ss a u lted h im a n d th re a ten e d to ki l l hi m i f he de nounced them t o t he author i t i es . I d. A ppar ent l yfr om thati nci dent , t he m ar as obt ai ned Zaval et a- L opez’ s cel l - phone numberand ca l l ed t o thr eat en hi m , t el l i ng hi m theyw er e w at chi ng hi s everym ove. I d. H e s t at ed i n hi s aff i davi tthathe di d not s e e k h e lp f

ro m th e a u th o ri tie s . Id . A t h is h e a rin g , Z a v a leta -L o p e z ’s la w y e r e x p lain e d th a t Z a v a leta -L o p e z b a se d h is cl ai m s on t he tr eatm enthe fa ced a s a mem berof the part i cul ars oci al gr oup des cr i bed as y o u n g m e n w h o h a v e b e e n tar g e ted b yg a n g s f o r m e m b e rsh ip a n d w h o h a v e re f u se d to jo in g a n g s. R . 9 8 . In h is te stim o n y , Z a v a leta -L o p e z e lab o ra ted th a t h e h a d p ro b lem s w ith m ember s of the M ar a Sal vatrucha i n hi s nat i ve El Sal vadori n 2004, namel ythatthey p r e s s e d h i m t o j o i n th e g a n g , a n d th r e a t e n e d th a tth e ywo u l d k i l l h i m i f h e d i d n o tj o i n . R. 87- 88. W hen he t ol d hi s par ent s aboutthe pr obl ems he w as havi ng, theym oved “that s ame y ear ” ( w hi ch appe ar s al s o as “2001” i n the tr ans cr i pt ) . R . 89. A ft erthe move, he re g u lar lyre tu rn e d to h is o ld n e ig h b o rh o o d to v isit h is g irlfr ien d . R . 9 0 . D u rin g o n e v isit a t th e e n d o f

D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 , g a n g m e m b e rs a c c o s te d h im a n d to ld h im to jo in th e m . Id . W hen he turned hi s back on them, theypul l ed guns on hi m , r obbed hi m , and as s aul t ed h im . Id . H e re p e a ted th a t th e ysu b se q u e n tlyc a lled h is h o m e a n d h a ra ss e d h im to jo in3

them, thr eat eni ng thattheyw oul d ki l l hi m i f he di d notj oi n. R . 91. Z aval et a- L opez rep o rt ed the in cide n t t o the p o li ce , b u t po li ce ef fo rt s to c ap ture the p erp etrators w ere uns ucce s s ful . R . 91- 92. H e t es t i fi ed thatgang mem ber s w er e s t i l l l ooki ng forhi m aft er he l eftthe countr yi n 2005. R . 94. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed Zaval et a- L opez’ s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef. T he I J r ecogni zed thatgang vi ol ence i s a pr obl em i n E l Sal vadorbuthel d thatZ aval et a- L opez had nots how n t hathe w as t ar get ed on the bas i s of a pr ot ect ed gr ound. T he I J concl uded that Z av aleta-L o p ez h ad fa il ed to ide n ti fya p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p o f w h ich h e w as a p art and had notpr es ent ed anyevi dence thatthe gang r ecrui t m entr el at ed i n anyw ayt o an actual ori m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on hel d byZ aval et a- L opez. T he I J s epar at el yr ej ect ed the C A T cl ai m , not i ng, among ot herthi ngs , thatthe El Sal vador an governm ent , w hi ch t ook s t eps t o tryt o fi nd Z aval et a- L opez’ s att acke r s , had nott or tur ed oracqui es ced t o any to rt u re o f

Z a v a le ta -L o p e z . Z aval et a- L opez a ppeal ed the deni al of hi s as y l um cl ai m t o the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . R . 12- 16. T hr ough couns el , he hi ghl i ght ed hi s t es t i m ony thathe di d notj oi n t he M ar a Sal vatrucha be caus e gang mem ber s “w er e bad pe opl e w ho k ill a n d ro b ,” a n d a rg u e d th a t q u a lifie d f o r a sy lu m b e c a u se h e re f u se d g a n g m e m b e rsh ip b a s e d o n h is re lig io u s b e lie f s . R . 1 6 . T h e B IA a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t Z a v a leta -L o p e z h a d n o t sh o w n th a t h is m e m b e rsh ip in a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p w as a rea so n fo r th e a ll eg ed p erse cu ti o n b ythe M araW e a g ree w ith the R esp o n d en t th at byn o t add ressing in h is brief the ag en cy ’s 1 con cl usi on s r egardi ng his w i thh oldi ng and C A T cl ai m s, Z avalet a-Lo pez h as w ai ved t hese is s u e s o n a p p e a l. S e e G h a n a v . H o lla n d , 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 4 Sal vatrucha. T he B I A not ed the pr obl em w i th gangs i n E l Sal vador , butagr eed w i th t he I J thatZ aval et a- L opez’ s pr offe r ed s oci al gr oup w as t oo s w eepi ng and w i thoutthe s oci al vi s i bi l i tyr equi r ed t o qual i fyas a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. T he B I A al s o not ed thatany p o li ti ca l op inion , im p u ted o r oth erw ise, o f Z av aleta-L o p ez w as u n related to the M ara Sal vatrucha’ s r ecrui t m enteff or t s . T he B I A hel d thatno evi dence s uppor t ed Zaval et aL opez’ s ar gum enton appea l thathe w as t ar get ed bythe gang, orthathe oppos ed them, on th e b a s i s o f

h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f

s . Th e BI A r e

j e c t e d Za v a l e t a - Lo p e z ’ s c l a i ms f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g , a n d C A T re lie f. Z aval et a- L opez, thr ough couns el , pr es ent s a pet i t i on forr evi ew . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e cons i derques t i ons of l aw de novo. See G erbi erv. H ol m es , 280 F. 3d 297, 302 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs for su b stan ti al ev iden ce . S ee B u ttv . G o n za les, 4 2 9 F . 3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n h i s p e t i t i o n , Z a v a l e t a - L o p e z a r g u e s th a th e i s e n t i t l e d t o a s y l u m a n d a s s i g n s t wo err ors t o the I J. H e con t end s that the IJ erred i n co ncludi ng that he had no tsuffered p ast p e rse c u tio n b a se d o n a p ro tec ted g ro u n d , an d th a t th e IJ e rre d in h o ld in g th a t h e is n o t a m emberof a pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup. O n r evi ew , w e fi nd no err or , and w e w i l l denyt he 1 p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . T o b e e lig ib le f

o r a sy lu m , a p e tit io n e r m u st s h o w p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a w e ll-5

f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n , b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r f o rc e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is notabl e orw i l l i ng t o contr ol , on acc ountof a s peci fi c s t atut or i l yenumer at ed gr ound, namel yr ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ; K i bi nda v. A t t orneyG en. of the U ni t ed St at es , 477 F. 3d 113, 119 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . Z aval et a- L opez di d notes t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. T o es t abl i s h per s ecut i on on the bas i s of m ember s hi p i n a s oci al gr oup, “an a l i en m us t( 1) i dent i fya gr oup thatcons t i tut es a ‘ part i cul ars oci al gr oup’ . . . , ( 2) es t abl i s h t hat he ors he i s a mem berof thatgr oup, and ( 3) s how thathe ors he w oul d be per s ecut ed or has a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on bas ed on thatm ember s hi p. ” Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . A part i cul ars oci al gr oup, as the B I A has expl ai ned i n a defi ni t i on w e have acc ept ed, i s “‘ a gr oup of per s ons al l of w hom s har e a c om m on, im m u table c h ara cterist ic. ’” Id . (qu o ti n g M att er o f A co sta, 1 9 I. & N . D ec . 2 1 1 , 2 3 3 (B IA 1985) . W e have r ecogni zed the di ffi cul tyof di s cerni ng the cont our s of part i cul ars oci al g ro u p s, b u t w e f

o c u s o n w h e th e r p u tativ e g ro u p m e m b e rs p o ss e ss c o m m o n , im m u tab le char act er i s t i cs s uch as r ace , gender , ora pr i orpos i t i on, s t atus , orcondi t i on, or char act er i s t i cs thatar e capabl e of be i ng change d butar e of s uch funda m ent al i m por t ance th a t p e rs o n s s h o u ld n o t b e re q u ir e d to c h a n g e th e m , s u c h a s re lig io u s b e lie f s . S ee E sco b ar v . G o n za les, 4 1 7 F . 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 6 -67 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n th i s c a s e , w e a g r e e w i th th e a g e n c y th a tZ a v a l e t a - L o p e z d i d n o ti d e n t i f y a6

part i cul ars oci al gr oup as thatt erm i s us ed i n the as y l um s t atut e. A s Z aval et a- L opez n o tes , w e p re v io u slyd e c lin e d to d e c id e a sim ilar q u e stio n in th e f irst in sta n c e , n a m e ly w hether“‘ y oung H ondur an men w ho have be en ac t i vel yr ecrui t ed bygangs and w ho have r efus ed t o j oi n t he gangs ’ ” i s a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. V al di vi ezo- G al damez v. A t t or ney G en. of the U ni t ed St at es , 502 F. 3d 285, 290 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . H ow ever , s i nce that deci s i on, the B I A has w ei ghed i n on a s i m i l arques t i on even c l os ert o the ques t i on ati s s ue in th is c a se . N a m e ly(a n d c o n tra ryto Z a v a leta -L o p e z ’s im p lica tio n s to th e c o n tra ry ), in M att erof S- E - G - , the B I A hel d t hat“a pr opos ed gr oup of y oung Sal vador ans w ho have been s ubj ectt o r ecrui t m enteff or t s bycr i m i nal gangs , butw ho have r efus ed t o j oi n for per s onal , r el i gi ous , orm or al r eas ons ” di d notcons t i tut e a pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup. See 24 I . & N . D ec. 579, 588 ( B I A 2008) . T he B I A concl uded thatthe gr oup s i m pl ydi d not have a s har ed cha r act er i s t i c w i th t he s oci al vi s i bi l i tyr equi r ed underi t s pr ece dent . See i d. at587- 88. A ft era r evi ew of the D epart m entof St at e C ountryR eporti n thatcas e, the B I A al s o det erm i ned thatthe r i s k of gang vi ol ence w as notl i m i t ed t o y oung m en w ho r es i s tr ecrui t m entbuti ns t ead a ffe ct ed al l s egment s of the popul at i on. See i d. T he e v id e n c e is s im ilar in th is c a se ; f o r in sta n c e , the C o u n tryR e p o rt in th is c a se h ig h lig h ts thatgang- r el at ed vi ol ence i s w i des pr ead. R . 17. I n l i ghtof the bac kgr ound evi dence , t he B I A r eas onabl yr el i ed on i t s pr i orpr ece dent s t o concl ude thatthe s oci al gr oup Z aval et aL opez pr opos ed i s s i m pl yt oo di ffus e and w i thoutthe comm on, i m m ut abl e cha r act er i s t i cs n e c e s s a ry to e s ta b lis h th e c o n to u rs o f a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p .7

Fur therm or e, Z aval et a- L opez f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h w i th hi s t es t i m onyand other evi dence thathe w oul d be per s ecut ed on ac countof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on oran i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. H i s s i m pl e r es i s t ance t o the r ecrui t m enteff or t s of the M ar a Sal vatrucha i s notenough. See Lukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 173 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng I N S v. E li as-Z ac ara is, 5 0 2 U . S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 3 (19 9 2 ), fo r i ts sup p o rto f th e p rop o sit ion that m ere oppos i t i on t o for ced c ons cr i pt i on i nt o guer i l l a orr ebel for ces i s notthe s ame as pol i t i cal o p p o s itio n to s u c h a g ro u p ). M or eover , ther e i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d thatZ aval et a- L opez w as t ar get ed by the M ar a Sal vatrucha be caus e of hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs . A l though he r ai s ed thi s i s s ue b e f o re th e B IA , h e d id n o t p re se n t ev id e n c e o f th is in h is a f

f id a v it o r te stim o n y(h e d id n o t ev e n c h e c k th e b o x f o r re lig io u s p e rse c u tio n o n h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n ). A t h is hear i ng, Z aval et a- L opez s ai d t hathe r es i s t ed the ef for t s t o r ecrui thi m s i m pl ybeca us e the M a ra S a lv a tru c h a w e re “ b a d p e o p le w h o k ill a n d ro b .” R . 8 8 . In su m , alth o u g h Z a v a leta -L o p e z f a c e d v io len c e f

ro m g a n g s in E l S a lv a d o r, h e d id notpr ove thathe w as s i ngl ed outforpas tper s ecut i on bythos e gangs on the bas i s of one o f th e p rotec ted g rou n d s. A n d h e h as n o t sho w n that h e h as a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on. G ener al l yhar s h condi t i ons s har ed bym anyotherper s ons , s uch as the w id e sp re a d g a n g v io len c e d e sc rib e d in th e C o u n tryR e p o rt in th is c a se , d o n o t am o u n t to persecut i on . S ee A l -Fara v. G on zal es, 40 4 F . 3d 73 3, 74 0 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). F or these r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.