N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JULIO GONZALEZ C R IOLLO, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-72214 Age n c y No. A026-614-398
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 Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W . FLETC HER , a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Julio Gonz a le z C riollo (“ C riollo” ) pe titions for re vie w of a n orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his a pplic a tions for a sy l um , withholding of rem o v a l, re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ) and spe c ia l rule c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l unde r the Nic ara gua n Adjustm e nt a

nd C e ntra l 

# FIL ED
APR 04 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Am e ric an R e lie f Ac t (“ NAC AR A” ). C riollo a lso pe titions for re vie wof the B IA’ s de nia l of his m o tion for re m and to theIm m i gra tion Judge(“ IJ” ) to a llow him to pursue c anc e lla

t ion of re m ova l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1) (“ non-LPR
c anc e lla tion of re m ova l ” ). Fina lly , C riollo a rgue s tha t the IJ a nd B IA e rre d in fa iling to c onside r his e ligibility for volunta

ry de pa rture . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. W e grant the pe tition in pa rt, de ny in pa

rt, a nd re m and. C riollo’ s c la im s for a sy lum , withholding of re m o va l, spe c ia l rule
c anc e lla tion unde r NAC AR

A, a nd non-LPR

c a n c e lla tion of re m ova l a

re subje c t to the p e rse c utor ba

r. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i) (a s y l um ); id. § 1231(b)(3)(B )(i) (withholding of rem ova l); 8 C .F.R . § 1240.66(a) (NAC AR A spe c i a l rule
c anc e lla tion); 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(c )(5) (non-LPR c anc e lla tion). C riollo te stifie d in a he aring be fore an IJ tha

t a s a m e m be r of the Sa l va dora

n Nationa l Gua

rd, he inve stiga te d, a rre ste d, a nd inte rrogate d pe ople be c a use of the ir tie s to le ftist groups. He turne d the se individuals ove r to his supe riors knowing tha t the y would like ly

be torture d. Som e of the pe ople he arre ste d we re subse que ntly “ be a te n like anim a ls.” This e vide nc e indic a te s tha t C riollo wa s both “

pe rsona lly

involve d” in a

nd

“ purpose fully

a s siste d” pe rse c ution on a c c ount of politic a l opinion, shifting the burde n to him to prove tha

t he wa s not a pe rse c utor. Se e 8 C
. F.R . § 1240.8(d); Miranda Alv

arado v . Gonzale

s , 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9th C ir. 2006). C riollo fa ile d to c a rry tha t burde n. The re fore , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ sc onc lusion tha t C riollo a s siste d

in pe rse c ution a

nd wa s ine ligiblefor a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd NAC A R

A spe c ia l rule c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. Additiona lly , e ve n

if the IJ e rre d in fa iling to inform C riollo of his “ a

ppa re nt
e ligibility” for non-LPR c anc e lla tion of re m ova l during initia l proc e e dings, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1240.11(a)(2), he c annot show tha t he wa s pre

judic e d, be c a

use he is ine l igible for tha

t re lie f, too, on a c c ount of thepe rse c utor ba r. C o nse que ntly , the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing his m otion to re m and to pursuenonLPR c anc e lla tion. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t C riollo ha s not
e sta blishe d e ntitle m e nt to re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture . The B IA uphe ld the IJ’ s finding tha t C riollo did not pre se nt c re d ible e vide nc e substa n tia ting his C AT c la i m . Eve n a ssum ing his te stim ony wa s c re dible , C riollo ha s not shown that it is m o re like l y

tha n not he will be torture d in El Sa lva dor. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). The fa c t tha t he wa s onc e que stione d by the polic e a fte r he re porte d be ing c a pture d by gue rilla s doe s not suffic e to show tha t he would be torture d “ by
or at the instiga

tion of or with the

c onse nt or a c quie sc e n c e of a public offic ia l” in El Sa lva dor. Id. § 1208.18(a)(1). Fina lly , C riollo a

rgue s tha t the IJ e rre d in fa iling to inform him of volunta

ry de pa rture or c onside r his e ligibility for volunta

ry de pa rture . Unde r the re gula

tions,
an IJ “ m ust a dvise a

re sponde nt of the form s of re lie f for whic h he or she isa

ppa re ntly e ligible , inc luding volunta ry de pa rture .” Matte r of C

-B- , 25 I& N De c . 888, 891 (B IA 2012) (c iting 8 C .F.R . § 1240.11(a)(2)). The IJ did not discuss volunta ry de pa rture at C riollo’ s m e rits he aring nor in he r writte n de c i sion orde ring him re m ove d. C riollo note d his a ppa re nt e ligibility

for volunta

ry de p arture in brie fing be fore the B IA, but the B IA did not a d dre ss it. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1229c (b). W e the re fore re m and for the B IA to c onside r whe the r C riollo is e ligiblefor volunta ry de pa rture . Se e Moran-Enrique z v . I.N .S. , 884 F.2d 420, 422 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ [I] f an IJ fa ils to a dvise an a lie n of a n ave nue of re lie f pote n tia lly ava ila ble to him , we will re m a

n d for c onside ra tion of thea lie n’ s e ligibility for tha t re lie f.” ). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. G RANT E D in par t, DE NIE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D
.