2006 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 Third C ir c uit 7-11-2006 

# V a sque z Ramire z v

. Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2640

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2006 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 " V as quez R amir ez v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 761. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006/761T h e H o n o rab le W il li am H . Y o h n Jr. , U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 05- 2640 FELI X A LFON SO V ASQ UEZ R AM I REZ, 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 es pondent 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 B I A N o. A 95- 902- 646 ( U . S. I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e H enryS. D ogi n) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 24, 2006 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , N Y G A A R D , C i r cui t Judge , a n d Y O H N , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: J ul y11, 2006)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTV as quez a l s o r eques t ed and w as deni ed vol unt arydepartur e. B uthe does not 1 ch all en g e o n ap p ea l th e d en ial o f e ith er tha t r eli ef o r of w ith h o lding u n d er C A T . (P et’r B r. 4 . ) 2 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . Fel i x A l fons o V as quez Ram i r ez ( “V as quez” ) s eeks r evi ew of an I J ’ s deci s i on d e n y in g h is a p p lica tio n s f o r a sy lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to r evi ew the B I A ’ s or deraff i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e w i l l gr ant th e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I. V as quez i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a. O n J anuary17, 2002, V as quez e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s o n a n o n -im m ig ra n t B 2 v isa , w h ich a u th o riz e d h im to sta yu n til J ul y16, 2002. H e r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es aft erhi s author i zed s t ayexpi r ed, havi ng f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n wi th th e Bu r e a u o f Ci t i z e n s h i p a n d I mmi g r a t i o n S e r v i c e s f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d w ith h o lding u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). 1 V asq u ez ’s claim fo r reli ef is ba sed o n ex tort ion d em an d s m ad e to h im an d o thers in h is co m m u n ityb ym em b ers o f a n o n -go v ern m en tal g u eril la gro u p , the R ev o luti o n ary A r m ed For ces of C ol om bi a ( FA R C ) . V as quez l i ved and ow ned a bus i nes s i n Per ei r a, C o lo m b ia. H e a lso o w n e d a f a rm h o u se a n d v a c a tio n h o m e in A p ia, a sm a ll co m m u n ity a b o u t3 8 mi l e s o u t s i d e o f P e r e i r a . Va s q u e z wa s a l e a d e ri n th e Ap i a c o mm u n i ty . He act i vel ypart i ci pat ed i n the off i ci al L i ber al Par tym ovement , hel pi ng r ai s e funds for3

comm uni typr oj ect s i n A pi a s uch as the i ns t al l at i on of t el ephones and r oads , vacc i nat i ons f o r c h ild re n , a n d g a rb a g e c o lle c tio n . A c c o rd in g to h is te stim o n y , o n e d a yin D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 , w h ile s tayi n g a t h is vaca t i on hom e i n A pi a, V as quez r ece i ved a l ett erfr om FA R C demandi ng m oney . T he let ter st ated in p art W e ar e aw ar e thaty ourpr opert i es and bus i nes s es ar e l ocat ed i n ourar eas of oper at i ons . B eca us e of thi s , i ti s nece s s aryt o undert ake s om e form of col l abor at i on and ec onom i c agr eementforthe fi nanci ng of the mi l i t aryof the pe op l e FA RC - EP. B yy o u r d ire c tlyc o m m u n ica tin g w ith u s a s s o o n a s p o ss ib le, y o u w ill a v o id anyothertype of pr es s ur e. . . . T he amountof t ax w i l l be agr eed t o betw een the part i es . I n thi s w ayy ou w i l l be partof form i ng the N ew C ol om bi a. ( A pp. 204. ) Som e t i m e af t err ece i vi ng thi s l ett er , V as quez l eftC ol om bi a w i th hi s w i fe a n d v isited h is s o n in th e U n ited S tate s, w h o w a s a tten d in g c o lleg e in N e w Je rse y . W h ile V a sq u e z w a s a w a y , an A p ia n e ig h b o r — V a sq u e z ’s w if e ’s c o u sin E m ili o H in c a p ie B e d o y a — w a s m u rd e re d b yF A R C f o r f a ilin g to c o m p ly w ith a s im ila r e x to rt io n d e m a n d . L ik e V a s q u e z , H in c a p ie w a s a la n d o w n e r a n d le a d e r o f th e A p ia c o m m u n ity. V as quez r eturned t o C ol om bi a, butnott o A pi a. H e then l earned FA R C w as engagi ng i n a s er i es of ki dnappi ngs i n A pi a. Fear i ng forhi s s afe ty , V as quez a gai n l eft C o lom b ia fo r th e U n it ed S tat es, th is t im e w ith o u t his w ife, w h o stay ed b eh ind in P ere ir a t o car e forherel der l yfather . W hi l e he w as aw ay , FA R C ki dnapped V as quez’ s s on- i nlaw , R ica rd o M e g io S a lg id o . M e g io , als o a lan d o w n e r, h a d g a in e d p ro m in e n c e in h is comm uni tythr ough hi s coff ee pl ant at i on. M egi o w as eventual l yr el eas ed, and V as quez4

agai n r eturned t o Per ei r a, bel i evi ng the s i tuat i on had i m pr oved. B uthe s oon l earned FA R C had gai ned contr ol of a l ar gerpor t i on of the countryand dec i ded t o fl ee perm anent l yw i th hi s w i fe t o the U ni t ed St at es . O n J anuary3, 2002, j us tbefor e he l eft C ol om bi a forthe fi nal t i m e, V as quez f i l ed a c om pl ai ntw i th C ol om bi an author i t i es about F A R C ’s a c tiv iti e s. A f

ter a rriv in g in th e U n ited S tate s, V a sq u e z lea rn e d a n o th e r o f h is w if e ’s c o u s in s a n d a c o u s in ’s s o n h a d b o th b e e n k id n a p p e d . T h e IJ d e n ied V a sq u e z ’s a p p lica tio n f o r re lief , fin d in g h e c o u ld n o t d e m o n stra te el i gi bi l i tyforei therw i thhol di ng of r emoval oras y l um beca us e he w as per s ecut ed by FA R C foreconomi c r eas ons , notpol i t i cal . V as quez appeal ed t o the B I A , w hi ch af fi r m ed w i thoutopi ni on. II . W her e the B I A aff

i r m s the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thoutopi ni on, w e r evi ew the opi ni on of th e IJ . G a o v . A sh c ro

ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs u n d e r th e su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); Tarr aw al l y v. A sh c ro ft , 338 F. 3d 180, 184 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . U nderthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, fi ndi ngs ar e uphel d i f a r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d r eac h a s i m i l arconcl us i on bas ed on th e re c o rd . I

N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . W e w i l l onl yr ever s e i f the IJ ’s f in d in g s a re u n s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd o r b a s e d o n m e re c o n je c tu re . G ao , 299 F. 3d a t 2 7 2 . B u t th e IJ m u st a d d re ss th e p e tit io n e r’s c laim s a n d g iv e “ so m e in sig h t in to its r eas oni ng. ” 

### A w o lesi v. A sh cro ft , 3 4 1 F .3 d2 2 7 , 2 3 2

– 3 3 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ); s e eal s o Kay e mbeI n hi s pet i t i on t o thi s C our t , V as quez f ocus es on the I J ’ s fai l ur e t o fi nd he w as 2 per s ecut ed on ac countof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on. B uthi s br i ef a l s o r ai s es an ar gum entabout h is m em b ersh ip in a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p . V asq u ez h as re p ea tedlyasse rt ed , b o th h ere and befo re the IJ, that he w as t arget ed b ecause o f his st atus as a l and ow ner w ho ho l ds a pr om i nentpos i t i on i n the comm uni ty . T hes e as s ert i ons ar e s uffi ci entt o avoi d w ai verof th e p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p is s u e . See New t on v. Mer r i l lLynch, P i er ce, Fenner& Sm i th, I nc. , 25 9 F . 3d 15 4, 19 1 (3d C i r. 20 01 ) ( add res si ng i ssue r ai sed “i m pli ci t l y ” i n p l ai nti ffs’ br i ef) . B oth the I J and the B I A negl ect ed t o addr es s the s oci al gr oup i s s ue, w hi ch V as quez f

ai r l yr ai s ed i n fr ontof ea ch. Fur therm or e, the I J defi ned the l egal i s s ues w ith o u t r e g a rd to th o s e ra is e d in V a s q u e z ’s a p p lic a tio n . 5 

### v. A sh cro ft , 334 F. 3d 231, 238 ( 3d Ci r . 2003) ( “ Whe n de fi c i e nc i e s i n the BI A’ s de c i s i on m ake i t im

po ss iblefo r us t o m eaning fu lly re view it s dec is ion, we m ust vac at e that de c i s i on and r e mand s o that the BI A c an furthe r

e xpl a i n i t s r e a s oni ng. ” ( c i ti ng Ab du lai v . A sh cro ft , 239 F.3d54 2, 55 1 (3dCir. 20 01 )) . B oth w i thhol di ng of r emoval and as y l um r equi r e a s how i ng of per s ecut i on orfea r of per s ecut i on “on ac countof” one of fi ve enumer at ed gr ounds : r ace , r el i gi on, n a tio n a lity, m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n . 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( as y l um ) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) ( w i thhol di ng of r emoval ) . I n deny i ng V as quez’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , the I J concl uded V as quez c oul d have be en t ar get ed for tw o r eas ons : ( 1) hi s w eal th, and ( 2) hi s pol i t i cal act i vi t i es . T he I J r ej ect ed the form eras n o t f a llin g w ith in a n e n u m e ra te d g ro u n d , a n d th e la tte r a s u n s u p p o rt e d b yth e e v id e n c e . B utther e i s anotherpos s i bl e r eas on forthe per s ecut i on V as quez e xper i ence d, w hi ch n e ith e r th e IJ n o r th e B IA a d d re ss e d . H e c o u ld a lso h a v e b e e n tar g e ted f o r h is

“ m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p .” 2I n Ma ttero f A c o sta , the B I A defi ned “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup” as “a gr oup of per s ons 3 all o f w h o m sh are a c o m m o n , im m u table c h ara cterist ic. ” 1 9 I. & N . D ec . 2 1 1 , 2 3 3 (B IA 1 9 8 5 ); s e e Fa t i n v . I

NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1239 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( adopt i ng the A c o sta d e f in itio n o f “ p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p ” ). 6 A ccordi ng t o the I J, i f V asquez w as t arget ed b ecause o f his st atus as a bus i nes s m an and l andow ner , he w as per s ecut ed forpur el y“ec onom i c” r eas ons . ( A pp. 5 5

– 5 6 .) T h e B IA h a s ta k e n th e p o sitio n th a t “w e a lth ” itse lf — th a t is, the c h a ra c ter istic o f “ h a v in g m o n e y ” — d o e s n o t f a ll w ith in o n e o f

th e e n u m e ra te d g ro u n d s . See In re V - T- S- , 21 I & N D ec. 792, 798–99 ( B I A 1997) ( r ej ect i ng as y l um cl ai m w her e ki dnappi ng w a s m o tiv a ted b yp e tit io n e r’s a b ili tyto p a ya ra n so m , rath e r th a n b yh e r m e m b e rsh ip in th e so c ial g ro u p o f

F ili p in o s o f

C h in e se a n c e stry ); I

n r e S- V- , 22 I . & N . D ec. 1306, 1310 ( B I A 2000) ( “[I ] n the abs ence of evi dence t o s ugges totherm ot i vat i ons , evi dence thatthe perpetr at or s w er e mot i vat ed bya vi ct i m ’ s w eal th w i l l nots uppor ta fi ndi ng of per s ecut i on w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e A c t.” ), overr ul ed on othergr ounds by Zh e n gv . A sh c ro ft , 332 F .3 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 4 -9 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). B u t th e re is s u p p o rt f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t ce rta in m ani fes t at i ons of pr opertyhol di ng, s uch as ow ni ng l and, coul d cons t i tut e the type of “i m m ut abl e cha r act er i s t i c” thatw oul d m ake up a “part i cul ars oci al gr oup” underthe BI A’ s d e f

i n i t i o n o f th a tt e r m. See M

a ttero f A c o sta , 19 I . & N . D ec. 211, 233 ( “The 3 s h a r e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c mi g h tb e a n i n n a t e o n e s u c h a s s e x , c o l o r , o rk i n s h i p t i e s , o ri n s o me ci r cumst ance s i tm i ghtbe a s har ed pas texper i ence s uch as form erm i l i t aryl eade r s hi p or la n d o w n e rs h ip .” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by M at t erof7

Moghar r abi , 19 I . & N . D ec. 439, 439 ( B I A 1987) . A tl eas tone of ours i s t ercourt s has expl i ci t l ydi s t i ngui s hed betw een “ w eal th” and “ l andow ner s hi p” i n defi ni ng a “pa r t i cul ar s oci al gr oup. ” Tapi er o de O r ej uela v. G onz al es , 423 F. 3d 666, 672 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( h o l d i n g th a t“ th e e d u c a t e d , l a n d o wn i n g c l a s s o f c a t t l e f a r me r s t a r g e t e d b yF ARC” c o n s titu te s a “ p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p ” f o r r e f u g e e s ta tu s ). I n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, fi l ed J une 17, 2002, V as quez a s s ert ed el i gi bi l i tyfor as y l um bas ed on both “pol i t i cal opi ni on” and “ m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. ” (A p p . 2 9 6 . ) D esp it e this, w h en the a sy lum o ff icer init ial lyasse ssed V asq u ez ’s appl i cat i on, s he r ecor ded i n herR efe rr al A s s es s m entthat , “A ppl i cantfea r s thathe w i l l be ki l l ed byFA R C on acc ountof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” (I d. 1 1 5 . ) P o ssiblyas a resu lt , the IJ n e v e r c o n sid e re d th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t V a sq u e z c o u ld h a v e e x p e rie n c e d , o r w a s lik e lyto e x p e ri e n c e , p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p . Va s q u e z a g a i n r a i s e d th e s o c i a l g r o u p i s s u e o n a p p e a l t o th e BI A (I d. 3 8 ), b u t th e B IA a f f ir m e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n w ith o u t o p in io n . W i tho ut fur ther dev el op m ent of this cl ai m , w e are unab l e t o d efi ne the preci se s oci al gr oup forw hi ch V as quez c l ai m s he w as per s ecut ed. I tfol l ow s thatw e ca nnot deci de her e w hetherV as quez w as per s ecut ed on ac countof hi s m ember s hi p i n s uch a g rou p . A s the C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e S ec o n d C ir cu ith as re ce n tl yn o ted, th e B IA ’s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f

“ p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p ” f r o m A c o sta “i s gener al and i t s appl i cat i on does notr el i abl ycontr ol part i cul ari ns t ance s . ” U celo- G om ezv. G onz al es , 448 F. 3d 180,8

187–88 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( r emandi ng fora det erm i nat i on bythe B I A of w hether“af fl uent G uat emal ans ” cons t i tut e a “ part i cul ars oci al gr oup”) . T hes e mat t er s “r equi r e[] d eterm ining the f

ac ts an d d ec iding w h ethe r th e f ac ts as fo u n d fa ll w ith in a s tatu tory t erm . ” G onz al es v. Thom as , __ U . S. __, 126 S. C t . 1613, 1615 ( 2006) . A ccor di ngl y , they a re m a tte rs f

o r t h e a g e n c yto d e te rm in e in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . I

d. ; see al so U celo- G om ez , 448 F. 3d at186 ( “[W ] her e ( as her e) the B I A has y ett o deci de w hethera gr oup, a thi ng, or a s i tuat i on fal l s w i thi n the ambi tof a s t atut oryt erm , the pr opercour s e i s forthe r evi ew i ng c o u rtto re m a n d th e m a tte r t o th e B IA .” ). III . W e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew , vaca t e the B oar d’ s or der , and r emand t he m att erforfurtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.