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

e sponde n t . No. 14-73178 Age n c y No. A206-548-254
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e 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 ay

12, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Arturo Ale xa

n de r B arrie ntos, a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the IJ’ s de nia l of withholding of
re m ova l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). In a n orde r 

# FIL ED JUL 19 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.file d

c o nc urre ntly

with this me m orandum

disposition, we c onc lude tha t we have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. 1 W e de n y the pe tition for re v ie w. I B arrie ntos first a

rgue s tha t the re c ord c o m

pe ls the c onc l usion tha

t he would suffe r future pe rse c u t ion be c a use of m e m

be rship in his fa

m ily if he re t urne d to El Sa lva d or. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A). B arrie ntos’ s te stim ony

an d a sy lum a

pplic a tion pla i nly

sta te tha t his pa st pe rse c ution wa s, a

nd future pe rse c ution would be , be c a use he re fuse d to join the M ara Sa lvatruc ha (M S-13) ga

ng, not be c a

use of his fa

m ily m e m be rship. In
anothe r sign tha

t he would not be pe rse c u te d be c a u se of his fa m ily , B arrie ntos te stifie d tha

t, othe r tha

n his c ousin, num e rous c lose re lative s in El Sa l va d or, with the s a m e la st na

m e , ha ve not be e n ha

rm e d by M S-13. B arrie ntos te stifie d tha t his
c ousin “ wa s kille d be c a

use he didn’ t wa

nt to be c o m e a

m e m be r of” the ga

ng, not be c a use of his fa

m ily m e m be rship. B arrie ntos’ s a dditiona l a rgum e nts a

re not supporte d by the re c ord. W e c onc lude tha

t the re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t it is m ore like ly tha n not tha t a ny future pe rse c ution of B arrie ntos would be “ b e c a u se of”
m e m b e rship in his fa

m ily
. S e e 8 U.S.C
. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

1 Se e Barrie ntos v
. Ly nc h , No. 14-73178, — F.3d — (9th C ir. July

19, 2016). 2II

B arrie ntos a lso c om

pla i ns of se ve ra l e rrors re late d to pote ntia l pe rse c ution be c a use of his m e m

be rship in c ogniz a

ble soc ia l groups of “ those who a re forc ibly
c onsc ripte d by

M S-13 in El Sa lva dor” or those who ha v e “ spoke n out a ga inst the M S-13 while in the Unite d Stat e s.” B ut B arrie ntos’ s brie f to the B IA only inc lude d two se nte nc e s a ddre ssing a
soc i a l group othe r tha

n his fa m ily

— those who ha

ve “ spoke n out a ga i nst M S-13 while in the Unite d State s.” “ [W ] he n a pe titione r doe s file a brie f, the B IA is
e ntitle d to look to the

brie f for an e xplic a tion of the issue s tha t pe titione r is pre s e nting to ha

v e re vie we d.” Abe be v . Muk ase y , 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th C ir. 2009). A “ pe titione r m

ust sta te with suffic ie n t spe c i fic ity the ground for a

ppe a l.” Rojas-Garc ia v . Ashc roft , 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th C ir. 2003). B arrie ntos’ s brie f to the B IA provide d

no supporting a

uthority for the c onte ntion tha

t his propose d
a lte rna tive soc ia l group wa s c ogniz a ble
. Se e id. a t 820. M ore ove r, he inc l ude d no disc ussion of fa c ts supporting the c onc lusion tha

t suc h a group wa s c ogniz a ble , that he in fa c t ha d spoke n out a ga inst the ga ng while in the Unite d State s, or tha t it
wa s m o re like ly

tha n not tha t he would be pe rse c ute d be c a u se of his m e m

b e rship in
suc h a group. Se e id.

3W e the re fore c onc lude that B arrie ntos’ s brie f to the B IA wa s insuffic ie nt to

m a ke out a

withholding c la im

on the ba sis of a

nothe r soc ia l group be side s fam ily
. 2 III B arrie ntos a lso c ha lle nge s the B IA’ s a ffirm i ng the IJ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f.

“ [R ] e lie f unde r the C o nve n tion Aga inst Torturere quire s a two pa rt a na ly sis— first, is it m ore like ly tha

n not tha t the a lie n will be torture d upon re t urn to his hom e la n d; a nd se c ond, is the re suffic ie nt sta te a c tion involve d in tha

t torture .” Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Tamara-Gome

z v . Gonzale

s , 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th C ir. 2006)). B arrie ntos fa ile d to m e e t his burde n on e ithe r prong of this two-pa rt a na ly sis.

2 At ora l argum e nt be fore our C ourt, B arrie n tos’ s c ounse l re p e ate dly a sse rte d tha

t B arrie ntos’ s brie f to the B IA wa s file d pro se . It wa s not. Za c ha ry D. Aho, Esq., file d the brie f. 4A

The IJ c onc l ude d

tha t B arrie ntos fa ile d to e sta

b lish pa st torture or a like lihood of future torture if he re turns to El Sa lva dor. 3 W hile “ [a ] c ts c o nstituting torture unde r C AT a

re va rie d, a nd inc lude be a tings a

n d killings,” C

olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ), the re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the pa rtic ula r be ating pre viously

suffe re d by B arrie ntos rose to the le ve l of “ an e xtre m e form of c rue l a nd inhum an tre atm e nt,”
se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(2). R e ga rding future torture , the IJ c orre c tly note d that B arrie ntos ha s num e rous fa m ily m e m be rs living without ha

rm or thre a t of ha

rm from the ga

ngs in El Sa lva d or. Tha

t finding inform e d the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha t B arrie ntos c o uld “ sa fe ly
and re a sona

bly re loc a te t o a

nothe r part of El Sa lva dor.” B arrie ntos points to his te stim ony tha t his m othe r told him

tha t M S-13 ha s “ be e n a sking a round the

3 “ In a sse s sing whe the r it is m ore like ly tha n not tha t a n a pplic ant would be torture d in the propose d c ountry of re m ova l , a ll e vide n c e re le va nt to thepossibility of future torture sha ll be c onside re d” by the IJ. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3); AguilarRamos v . Holde r , 594 F.3d 701, 705 n.6 (9th C ir. 2010). B arrie ntos c ritic iz e s the B IA’ s c onc lusory re solution of his C AT c l a im
. Howe ve r, “ [w] h e re , a s he re , the B IA doe s not e xpre ssly

sta t e whe the r it c onduc t e d de novo re vie w a nd the la c k of ana ly sis in its orde

r sugge s ts it ga

ve signific ant we ight to the IJ’ s de c ision, we will re vie w the IJ’ s de c ision ‘ a s a guide to wha

t la y be hind the B IA’ s c onc lusion.’ ” Orne las-C

hav e z v . Gonzale

s , 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th C ir. 2006) (quoting K ozulin v . IN

S , 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th C ir. 2000)). W e c onc lude tha t the IJ c onside re d a ll the re le va

n t e vide nc e . 5ne ighborhood trying to find out if I’ v e be e n ba c k y e t,” and tha t “ [w] he re ve r I go, the y ’ re going to c om e find m e and kill m e .” Eve n if M S-13 is a sking a bout him
and he doe s ha

ve a subje c tive fe ar of be i ng kille d, suc h e vide nc e doe s not c ompe l the c onc lusion tha

t it is like ly

tha t B arrie ntos will be

torture d or kille d

if he re turns to El Sa l va dor. B The re c ord supports the

IJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t the gove rnm e nt would not
a c quie sc e in B arrie ntos’ s torture . B arrie ntos te s tifie d tha t, if he re porte d a

c rim e to the p olic e , the polic e “ would a rre st the m , a

nd the y would inve stiga

te , a nd . . . the y would a rre st the m , but the n the y

have othe r pe ople on the outside , a nd the se pe ople on the outside would the n c o m e a fte r m e and m y fa m i ly .” W he n a ske d if the gove rnm e nt c ould prote c t him if he we re to re turn to El Sa lva dor, B arrie ntos te stifie d, “ Ye s , I think the y c ould prote c t m e , but re a lly , in re a lity , I’ m from a poor fa m ily , a nd I’ m — t he y ’ re not going to wa

nt to be ta king c are of m e 24 hours a da y .” The IJ found tha

t the c ountry

c ondition re

ports in the re c ord supporte d his
c onc lusion. Spe c ific a lly , the IJ note d tha t the re p orts “ indic a te tha t El Sa lva dor suffe rs from

ga ng viole nc e and gove rnm e nt c orruption,” but the y “ a lso indic a te

6that

the gove rnm e nt of El Sa l va dor ha s unde rtake n num e rous initia tive s to c om

ba t ga ng viole nc e and c urb c orruption.” This e vide nc e and B arrie ntos’ s te stim ony support theIJ’ s c onc lusion tha t the Sa lva d oran gove rnm e nt’ s e fforts to c urb ga ng viole nc e and c orruption “ m ay not be the m ost e ffe c tua l, but [the e vide nc e doe s ] not indic a te tha t the gove rnm e nt would turn a blind e y e or a c quie sc e to the torture of its c itiz e ns by ga n gs.” The e v ide nc e
a lso supports the

B IA’ s (im

plie d) c onc lusion tha

t the Sa lva dora

n gove rnm e nt is having “ diffic ulty

c ontrolling c rim ina l s,” but is not “ a c quie s c ing in c rim ina l
a c tivitie s.” To the e xte nt tha t El Sa l va dor’ s polic ie s a

re ine ffe c t ive in re duc ing ga ng viole nc e , the y are sim ila r to those progra

m s in Garc i a-Milian tha

t showe d that the gove rnm e nt wa s not willfully blind to a

tta c ks on its c itiz e ns. Se e Garc iaMilian , 755 F.3d a

t 1035. In sum , the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t the Sa lva d oran gove rnm e nt would not
a c quie sc e in the torture of B arrie ntos is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The
e vide nc e doe s not c o m

pe l a c onc lusion to the

c ontra ry . DE NIE D.

7