# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 24 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Carl os Reynos o Lu cas

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

v.

Lore tt a E. Ly

nc h, At to rn ey

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: May 18, 2 01 6

Fil ed : J ul y

1, 2 01 6

[Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Carl os Reynos o Lucas

, a na ti ve an d cit iz en of Gua te m al a, en te red th e Uni te d

St at es il le ga ll y in Apr il 20 05

. In F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 1, he pl ead ed gu il ty to an Io wa

m is de m ean or an d was th erea fte r ch arg ed wit h rem ov ab il it y as an al ie n pr es en t in th e

Uni te d St at es wit ho ut be in g ad m it te d or pa ro le d. Luc as co nc ed ed rem ov ab il it y

, bu t

so ug ht rel ie f fro m rem ov al by fil in g ap pl ic at io ns fo r as y lu m

, wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

,an d pr ot ect io n un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st To rtu re (CAT), cl ai m in g th at he ha d

be en pe rs ecu te d in Gua te m al a on acco un t of h is rel ig io n a nd hi s m em be rs hi p in th e

pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p of “ Gua te m al an Ch ris ti an s” an d t h a t he fear ed fu tu re

pe rs ecu ti on if he were to be ret ur ne d to Gua te m al a. Fo ll owi ng a he ari ng

, th e

im m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ) de ni ed rel ie f, an d th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (Bo ard )

di sm is se d Lu cas ’s app eal . W e d en y Luca s’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w.

Luc as te st ifi ed th at he was bo rn i n G u a t e mala on Octo be r 22 , 1 98 6, an d th at

hi s pa ren ts

, two br ot he rs

, an d on e si st er st il l li ve in Gua te m al a. He st at ed th at he an d

hi s fam il y are Ch ris ti an s an d be lo ng to th e Bri dg e of Life Ch ur ch

, whe re Luc as al so

sa ng in th e ch oi r. He te st ifi ed t h a t h e le ft Gua te m al a aft er th ree en co un te rs wit h

un kn own m em

be rs of th e 18 th St reet cri m in al ga ng

, a gr ou p th at Luc as te s t i f i ed

wou ld in di sc riminat el y “ hu rt[ ] al l of th e p e o p l e” in hi s sm al l to wn. Luc as ’s fir st

en co un te r wit h th e ga ng oc cu rred whi le he was walk in g t o ch ur ch an d was

ap pr oa ch e d by th ree ga ng m em be rs

, who at te m

pt ed to st eal hi s ph on e an d m on ey

,

tri e d to recr ui t hi m

, an d th en be at hi m an d th reat en ed hi m wit h a kn ife whe n he

res is te d. A si m i l a r e n c o u nt er oc cu rred two m on th s la te r, ag ai n whi le Luc as was

walk in g to ch ur ch

. Dur in g th e th ird en co un te r, Luc as was a p p ro ach ed by ei gh t

m on ey -d em an di ng ga ng m em be rs

. Luc as fir st st at ed th at he was ab le to ru n away an d

was un ha rm ed

, bu t la te r s t a t ed th at a ga ng m em be r sh ot hi m in th e fo ot

, le av in g a

sm al l sc ar. Luc as te st ifi ed th at he di d no t rep or t th es e ev en ts to th e po li ce, no r di d he

se ek m ed ic al tre at m en t fo ll owi ng an y of th e th ree in ci de nt s. Luc as co ul d no t id en ti fy

an y of th e ga ng m em

be rs , a nd whe n h e was as ke d why t he y tri ed to recr ui t hi m , h e

rep li ed

, “ I do n’t kn ow. I do n’t ha ve an y id ea why th ey do wan t m e. I do n’t kn ow.”

W he n as ke d whe th er th e g a n g memb e rs were “ a bu nc h of cri m in al s who are tryin g

to st eal fro m pe op le ,” Luc as an swe red , “ Y e s

. Th at ’s t he ir job

. Tha t’s th ei r wor k.”

He fu rth er te st ifi ed th at hi s pa ren ts an d si bl in gs co nt in ue to res id e in Gua te m al a an d

t h a t n o n e of th em ha ve ex pe rie nc ed an y pr ob le m s wit h an y ga ng m em be rs

. Luc a s

st at ed th at he f

e a r ed ret ur ni ng to hi s ho m et own in Gua te m al a be cau se th e ga ng

m em be rs wou ld “ co m e aft er [h i m]” a n d a t t em pt to ki ll hi m an d th at he co ul d no t

-2

-rel oc at e sa fel y in an ot he r pa rt of Gua te m al a be cau se he do es no t “ ha ve an y fam il y in

ot he r” l oc at io ns in th at co un try.

The IJ de ni ed rel ie f, co nc lu di ng fir st th at Luc as ’s ap pl ic at io n for asylum was

un ti m el y be cau se it ha d no t be en fil ed wit hi n th e s t a t ut or il y pr es cri be d on e-year

pe rio d fo ll owi ng hi s arri va l in th e Uni t ed St at es

. In th e al te rn at iv e, th e IJ de ni ed

Luc as ’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n on th e m eri ts

, co nc lu di ng th at Luc as ha d no t

de m on st rat ed th at he ha d su ffer ed pa st pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f hi s reli gi on or hi s

m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p of Gua te m al an Ch ris t i a n s

. As to pa st

pe rs ecu ti on

, th e IJ fo un d th at Luc as ha d no t es ta bl is he d th at th e in juri es he su ffer ed

ro se to th e le ve l of pe rs ecu ti on

, be cau se hi s te st im on y de m on st rat ed on ly th at he ha d

be en th reat en ed an d ha ras se d “ by cri m in al s who ha d req ue st ed hi s ph on e or m on ey ”

an d were act in g so le ly fo r pe rs on al ga in

. The IJ al so co nc lu de d th at Luc as ha d fai le d

to es ta bl is h th at th e Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t was un ab le or un wil li ng to co nt ro l th e

ga ng m em

be rs

, pa rti cu la r l y g i v e n th e fact th at Luc as ha d ne ve r rep or te d th e ga ng

m em be rs ’ at ta ck s to po li ce. The IJ al so fo un d th at Luc as ha d fai le d to es ta bl is h th at

hi s rel ig io n or hi s m em

be rs h i p i n th e gr ou p of Gua te m al an Ch ris ti an s was “ at le as t

on e cen tra l reas on ” fo r th e ha rm he su ffer ed

. The ev id en ce di d no t “ su gg es t th at an y

of th e at ta ck s were m ot iv at ed by [Luc as ’s] rel ig io n,” bu t in st ead es ta bl is he d th at th e

ga ng m em

be rs “ at ta ck [ed ] ev eryone ,” in cl ud in g th e “ Ch ris ti an s, Cat ho li cs

,

E va nge lis ts, an d no n- ch ur ch go ers ” in Luc as ’s co m m un it y

. The IJ th us co nc lu de d th at

Luc as ha d fai le d to es ta bl is h a ne xu s be twee n th e ha rm he ha d su ffer ed in th e pa st an d

an y st at ut or il y pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. The IJ th en co n c l u d e d th at Luc as ha d fai le d to

es ta bl is h a well -fo un de d fear of fut ur e p ers ecu ti on th at was o bjec ti ve ly reaso na bl e,

pa rti cu la rly in li gh t o f th e fac t t ha t h is fam il y m em be rs

, al l of whom were m em be rs

of Luc as ’s ch ur ch

, co nt in ue d to “ li ve un ha rm ed i n Gua te m al a.” Fi na ll y

, th e IJ

co nc lu de d th at

, be cau se Luc as ha d fai le d to m eet th e lo wer st an da rd of pr oo f req ui red

fo r as y lu m

, he ne ces sa ril y fai le d to m eet th e m or e rig or ou s st an da rd fo r wit hh ol di ng

of rem ov al

. And be cau se th e e vi de nc e ci te d in su pp or t of hi s cl ai m fo r CAT rel ie f

was id en ti cal to th e ev id en ce ci te d in su pp o r t o f hi s cl ai m s fo r as y lu m an d

-3

-wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, th e IJ de ni ed CAT rel ie f wit ho ut co nd uc ti ng an in de pe nd en t

an al y si s.

Luc as ap pe al ed to th e Bo ard

, whi ch de ni ed al l fo rm s of rel ie f an d di sm is se d hi s

ap pe al , c on cl ud in g th at ev en if hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m ha d be en ti m el y fil ed , h e

ha d no t es ta bl is he d th e req ui si t e n ex us be twee n a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

, na m el y

, hi s

rel ig io n, an d th e ha rm he ha d su ffer ed in th e pa st an d fear ed he wou ld su ffer in th e

fu tu re. The Bo ard al so fo u n d th at ev en if “ Gua te m al an Ch ris ti an s” co ns ti tu te d a

co gn iz ab le pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, Luc as ha d no t es ta bl is he d th at hi s m em be rs hi p in

th at gr ou p was “ at le as t on e cen tra l reas on ” th at ga ng m em be rs ha d ta rg et ed hi m fo r

ha rm

, pa rti cu la rly gi ve n hi s te st im on y th at th e ga ng m em be rs ta rg et ed ev eryone in hi s

co m m un it y

, reg ard le ss of rel ig io us affi li at io n, an d th at hi s fam il y

, who at te nd ed th e

sa m e ch ur ch , con ti nu ed to li ve in Guat em al a u nm ol es te d b y ga ng m em

be rs

.

Luc as ’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w ch al le ng es on ly th e B o a rd ’s de ni al of hi s

ap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. W e rev ie w t h e B oa rd ’s de ci si on fo r

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le

, an “ ex tre m el y de fere nt ia l st an da rd of

rev ie w,” an d we wil l no t di st ur b th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng s of fact “ un le ss an y reas on ab le

ad jud ic at or wou ld be co m

pe ll ed to co nc lu de to th e co nt rary.” Gul ed v. Mu ka se y

, 51 5

F.3 d 87 2, 87 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of la w de

no vo , b ut gi ve su bs ta nt ia l d e f e r e n c e to th e Bo ard ’s r eas on ab le in te rp ret at io n of th e

st at ut es an d reg ul at io ns th at it ad m in is te rs

. See Mat ul -Hern an de z v. Hol de r, 68 5 F.3 d

70 7, 71 1- 12 (8 th C i r

. 20 12 ). W he n th e Bo ard ad op ts th e reas on in g of th e IJ

, we

co ns id er th e two de ci si on s to ge th er. Si ng h v. Ly nc h, 80 3 F

. 3 d 9 88

, 99 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ). To es ta bl is h el ig ib il it y fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, an al ie n must sh ow a

“ cl ear pr ob ab il it y ” th at he su ffer ed pe rs ecu ti on in th e pa st on acco un t of a st at ut or il y

pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. Gul ed

, 51 5 F.3 d at 88 1. If he is un ab le to m ak e a sh owi ng of pa st

pe rs ecu t i o n

, he m

us t de m on st rat e th at he ha s a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re

pe rs ecu ti on in th e co un try of rem ov al on acco un t of a st at ut or il y pr ot ect ed gr ou nd an d

-4

-th at hi s fear is bo th su bjec ti ve ly g en ui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso na bl e. Davi la -Me jia

v. M uk as ey , 53 1 F .3d 62 4, 6 28 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

W e fir st no te th at no reas on ab le ad jud ic at or wou ld be co m

pe ll ed to co nc lu de

th a t Lu cas ha d su ffer ed pa st pe rs ecu ti on

. Pers ecu ti on is an “ ex tre m e co nc ep t” th at

in vo lv es “ th e in fli ct io n or th rea t o f d e a t h, to rtu re, or in jury to on e’s pe rs on or

free do m ” on acco un t of a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd , M a lo ng a v. Hol de r, 62 1 F.3 d 75 7, 76 4

(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), an d “ do es no t in cl ud e lo w-le ve l in ti m id at io n an d ha ras sm en t,” Si ng h,

80 3 F.3 d at 99 1 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In ad di ti on

, to de m on st rat e “ pe rs ecu ti on ,” an al ie n

m us t sh ow th at th e ha rm he su ffer ed was “ in fli ct ed eit he r by the go ve rn m en t . . . or

by pe rs on s or an or ga ni zat io n th at th e go ve rn m en t was un a b l e o r un wil li ng to

co nt ro l.” Men

jiv ar v. Gon zal es

, 4 16 F.3 d 91 8, 92 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The in juri es

Luc as su ffer ed di d no t ris e to th e le ve l o f p e r se cu ti on

. Mo reo ve r, Luc as fai le d to

de m on st rat e th at th e Gua te m al an go ve rn m en t was un ab le or un wil li ng to co nt ro l th e

ga ng m em

be rs

, gi ve n hi s fai lu re to rep or t th ei r at ta ck s to th e po li ce. And ev en if th e

ha rm Luc as suf

fe re d co nst itu te d m or e th an lo w-le ve l in ti m id at io n an d ha ras sm en t, th e

ga ng m em

be rs act ed for pe rs on al ga in , no t o n a cco un t o f an y pro te ct ed gro un d.

Luc as arg ue s th at th e Bo ard erre d in co nc lu di ng th at he fai le d to es ta bl is h th e

req ui si te ne xu s be twee n th e ha rm he su ffer ed an d h is rel ig io n. W e di sa gr ee. Eve n

if Luc as ha d de m on st rat ed th at he su ffer ed pa st pe rs ecu ti on

, th e Bo ar d p r o p e r l y

an al y zed whe th er Luc as ha d es ta bl is he d th at hi s rel ig io n was “ a t l e a s t on e cen tra l

reas on ” f o r th e ga ng m em

be rs ’ at ta ck s, an d it di d no t err in co nc lu di ng th at he ha d

fai le d to m ak e th e req ui si te sh owi ng

. See Mat te r of C-T-L-

, 2 5 I

. & N. Dec. 34 1,

34 4- 46 (BIA Sep t. 14

, 20 10 ) (n ot i n g t h a t a f te r en act m en t of th e REAL ID Act of

20 05

, th e “ at le as t on e cen tra l reas on ” st an da r d ap pl ie s whe n an al ie n as se rts

pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of m or e th an on e pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

, i.e.

, in mi xe d- m ot iv e

cas es ). In st ead

, th e Bo ard reas on ed

, th e at ta ck s Luc as su ffer ed were pa rt of an effo rt

by ga ng m em

be rs to ro b hi m an d to recr ui t hi m

. See Gait an v. Hol de r, 67 1 F.3 d 67 8,

68 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (rejec ti ng ga ng recr ui tm en t as a ba si s fo r rel ie f). Alt ho ug h Luc as

-5

-br ie fly m en ti on ed th at th e ga ng m em be rs at ta ck ed hi m du rin g on e en co un te r be cau se

he ha d c it ed hi s re li gi ou s bel ie fs in res is ti ng th ei r recr ui tm en t effo rts , hi s t es ti m on y

as a who le de m on st rat ed th at th e ga n g memb e r s ha ras se d an d at ta ck ed hi m in an

e f f o r t to ro b hi m of hi s m on ey an d po ss es si on s an d to ret al ia te ag ai ns t hi m fo r h i s

refu sa l to joi n th ei r ran ks —i rres pe ct iv e of th e reas on s Luc as g a v e fo r res is ti ng th e

ga ng m em

be rs ’ effo rts . Lucas als o c on ced ed at se ve ral po in ts in hi s t es ti m on y th at

ga ng m em

be rs ha ras se d an d at ta ck ed ev eryon e i n hi s co m m un it y reg ard le ss of

rel ig io us affi li at io n, fu rth er un de rm in in g hi s cl ai m th at he was si ng le d ou t be cau se

of hi s C hr is ti an rel ig io n.

Luc as al so a r g u es th at th e Bo ard erre d in co nc lu di ng th at hi s pr op os ed

pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p of “ Gua t e mal a n Ch ris ti an s” was no t co gn iz ab le

. Bu t th e

Bo ar d a s s u med fo r th e sa ke of arg um en t th at “ Gua te m al an Ch ris ti an s” was a

co gn iz ab le pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p an d ne ve rth el es s co nc lu de d th at

, in li gh t of th e

ab ov e-s et for th tes ti m on y , Luca s h ad fai le d t o e st ab li sh th at hi s m em be rs hi p i n t ha t

gr ou p was a reas on , m

uc h le ss a cen tra l reas on , f or ga ng m em

be rs to tar ge t h im

for

ha rm

.

Bec au se Luc as fai l e d to es ta bl is h th at a st at ut or il y pr ot ect ed gr ou nd was at

le as t on e cen tra l reas on fo r th e ha rm he su ffer ed in th e pa st

, he was no t ent it le d to a

pr es um pt io n th at he ha d a well -f o u n d e d f ear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of a

pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. Thu s, th e Bo ard di d no t err in co nc lu di ng th at Luc as fai le d to carr y

hi s bu rd en of de m on st rat in g an o b je c t iv el y reas on ab le fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

ba se d on a st at ut or il y pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. See Garci a-Co li nd res v. Hol de r, 70 0 F.3 d

11 53 , 11 58 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

The pe ti ti on for rev ie w is de ni ed

.

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

-6

-