T he H onorabl e W i l l i am E

. Smi t h, D i s t r i ct Ju dge f or t he U

. S. D i s t r i ct * C o urt f o r t he D i st ri ct of R ho d e Is l and , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

J ORGE A L B ER TO R EG AL ADO
E S C OB AR , Petitioner ,

v.
E RI C H. H OL DER , J R ., Attorney Ge ne ra l, Respondent

. No. 09-72964 Ag ency No. A070-451-936

OPI NI ON

On Petition for Review of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls Argued and Submitted No ve mbe r 9 , 2 01 2— San F ra nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia Filed June 5, 2013
Be fore : AndrewJ . Kleinfe ld and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit J udg es, and William E. Sm ith, District J udg e. *

Opinion by

J udg e Smith; Di sse nt b y

Judg e Kl e inf

e ldR EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER

2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y **

Im m igration The pa nel g rante d in part and denied in pa rt a pe tition for revie w o f t he B oard of I mmigration Appeals’ de nial of asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the Convention Ag ains t T o rture to a native and c itiz en of El Sa lva do r, and

re mand e d f

or the B oa rd to a dd re ss i n th e fi rs t instance whether

petitioner’s oppos i tion to viol ence constitutes a political opini o n an dwhether he esta blished a
c la im f or futur e pe rs e c uti on

on that ba sis

. The pa nel g rante d the petition with respec t to petitioner’s
a pp lic atio ns fo r a sylum and wi thh old ing of re mov a l be c a us e the B o ar d failed to a ddress whe ther pe titioner established a well-fou n d ed fear or

sufficie nt likelihood of future perse cution on acc ount of a prote cted g round. T he pane l direc ted the Boa

rd on rema

nd to r e-e valuate w h ether peti t i o n er’s opposition t o the strategy of the National L iberation Front for Fa ra bundo Marti (“ FML N”) of using violence c onstitut es a political opinion. The pa nel held that substantial evidenc e supported the finding of no past per secution bec ause the rec ord di d not compel the c onclusion that petitioner was attacke d on acc ount of any p r in c ip le d

o p p o s it io nto th e F M L

N o r it s v io le nce, rathe r than on a ccount of his failure to c ooperate in t he FML N ’ s r e c r u itme n t e f

f o rts , an d th at s u b s ta n ti a l e v id e n ceR EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER 3

su pp or te d th e B oa

rd ’s de te rm inatio n th at pe tit ion e r fa ile d to establish a cle ar pr obability of future torture. Dissenting, Judge Kleinfe ld wrote that afte r dete rmining that petitioner fa iled to establish that his past harm was connec ted to his polit ical opinion, there was no re ason for the Boa rd t o speculate further about such a possibl e nexus in the future, a nd that there is no need for ei t h erthis court or the Boa rd to rea ch the issue of

when, if e v er, views on violence constitute a political opinion.

CO UN SEL Rog e r G re e n ( argue d) and Jenny Ts ai, G re e n & Ts a i, Attorney s at L aw, San F ranc isco, California, f or Petitioner. Tony West, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, Civil Di vision, Cindy S. Fer rier, Senior L itigation C ounsel, and Kimber ly A. Bur dg e (a

rgued), Tr ial Attorney , Offic e of Immigration L iti gat i on, Civil Division, United St ates De partment of Justi c e , Wa sh ing ton , D .C. , f or Re sp on de nt.

OP IN ION
SMI TH, District Judge:
J org e Alber

to Reg alado- Escobar

petitions for a re view of the dec ision of the Boa

rd of Im m i g ration Appe als (B I A)R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER

4

8 U

. S. C. § 1158. 1

8 U

. S.C

. §1 2 3 1 (b)(3). 2

U ni t ed N at i ons Co nv ent i on Agai ns t T ort ur e a nd O t her Crue l , I nh uman 3
o r D e g ra d ing T re a tm e n t o r P u n ish m e n t, ad op t ed D e c . 1 0 , 1 9 8 4 , S . T re a ty D oc. N o. 100- 20 ( 198 8 ), 1 4 6 5 U

. N

. T

. S. 85, imp le m e n te d a t 8 C. F. R. § 1208. 18.

R e g a la d o ha d p re v io u sly c o m e to th e U n it e d S ta te s in 1 9 8 9 , also to 4
esc ap e t he F M L N , an d ap p l i ed f o r asylum

. T o his kn o w l ed ge , t h is fi rst
a p p lica tio n w a s n e v e r a d ju d ic a te d

. H e r e tur n e d to E l S a lva d o r in 2 0 0 0 to at t en d t o h i s s i ck mot h er , w h o di ed i n M ay 2005. de nying his a

pp lic atio n f

or a sylum , wi thh old ingof

re mov a l, 1 2 and relief under the Convention A g ainst Torture. We review 3 questions of law de novo and the B I A’ s fa c tua l fin di ngs, including whether

an applica

nt was per secute d on acc ount of his polit ical opinion, under the substantial e vidence standard. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias , 50 2 U.S . 478, 481 (1992). U n d e r th is s ta n d ar d , th is c o urt m

u s t u p h o ld th e B I A ’s fi nd ing s unle ss “ the e vid e nc e [the a pp lic ant] p re se nte d w a s so compelling that no rea sonable fa ctfinder could fa il to find the requisite fea

r of pe rsec ution.” Id. at 483–84. For the re asons state d b e low , we de ny in part , an d g ra nt an d re mand in p art , the petition.

Background and Proc edural History

A
Re g a la do is a

nativ e a nd c iti zen of El Sa lva do r who c ame to the Unit ed S tates i n Fe bruar y 2006 to esca

pe the National L iberation Front for F ara

bundo Marti (F ML

N). Hi s c on fl ic ts 4 with the FML

N beg an in 2002, when se vera l men showed upR EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER 5

atR e g a l a d o ’ s h o u s e an d a s k e d h i mt o j o i n a n F M LN demonstration that involved burning t i res in the street and br e akin gwi nd ow s. Reg a la do sa id t hat he wa s o pp os e d to these activities and ref

used to join the FML

N demonstration. Be f o r e th e I mm igr ati o n Ju d g e ( I J) , Re g a la d o s tate d tha t he ref used to join be cause he had “ alway s been a neutra l person [and does not] ag ree with parties that use violence to re solve their pol itical problems.” He further te stified that he “didn’ t a g re e wi th [the F ML

N’ s] po lit ic a l a c ti vi ties ,” or wi th t he ir “sy stem” g ener ally , addingthat he has “ne ver liked violenc e”
an d “ n e v e r p art i c i p at e d

w i th[ th e F M LN ]

. ” T h e F M LN members sa id they

would “settle t h is later,” a nd attacke d Reg alado on the streets a

fewday s later. The y

beat Reg alado with stic ks and roc ks and told him that if he did not cooper ate, “ next t ime would be wor se.” Reg alado wa s attacke d a sec ond ti m e in early 2003. He wa s w a iti ngfo r a bu s wh e n tw o me n be g an to b e a t hi m w ith
s t i c k s
. T h e y

i d e n t i f i e d th e m s e l v e s a s m e mb e r s o f th e F M LN and the y tol d Re g a la do that if

he did no t joi n the m, h e and

his family “would re g ret it .” After this incident, Rega lado went to l ive wi th h is f

athe r i n a no ther t own but

re tur ne d to his home in Bosque del Rio periodically to vis it his wife and kid s. Reg alado wa s attacke d a third time in 2005

. As he wa s exi ti n ga b u s , tw o me na

p p r o a c h e d

Re g a la d o , id e n tified the mse lve s as FML

N m e mbe rs and

be g an b e a tin g him

. Re g a la do te sti fi e d to the I J th at he a lmo st d ie d f ro m th is beatingand one of

his attacke rs told him that next t ime they
wo uld kil l hi m.R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER

6
B
The F ML N is a recog nized political party in El Salvador that has sign i fi ca nt repre sentation in both national and loca l g ov e rnme nts . T he re po rts of the U. S. D e pa

rtme nt o f S tate submitt ed b y b oth Reg alado a nd the Gover

nment descr ibe incidents of violence perpe trated by members of

the FML N.
C
The I J denied Reg alado’ s application for asylum, stating that he failed to de monstrate that he was attacke d on acc ount of a protec ted g round under asylum law

. Rather, the I J found th at R e g a la d o w a s “ e it

h e r th e v ic ti m o f

r e c r u itme n t b y

w hat appea rs t o be, essentially , a guer illa operation, or simply the victim of criminal activity .” In the alter native, the I J denied Re g a la do ’s a sylum

a pp lic atio n b e caus e Re g a la do fa ile d to demonstrate that the g overnme nt of El S al v ador is either unable or unwilling to pre vent the har m he s u ff er ed and the futur e pe rs e c uti on

he fe ars . T he I J note d th at Reg a la do did not report the attacks to the police an d , d uringhis second attack, f ear of t he poli ce is the onl y rea son his attacke rs fled
as soon as they did. L astly , the I J found that Reg alado f ailed to show that he could not sa fely reloc ate within El Salvador

. The I J also stated that, as Reg alado failed to satisfy the burden r equire d for a sylum eligibility , he nec essar ily failed to meet the hig her bur den re q u i re d for withholding of
re mov a l. M or e ov e r, the I J hel d th at R e g a la do fa ile d to de mon str ate that he wa s mo re lik e ly tha n not to b e tor

tur e d if he re turned to El Salvador, so h e wa s not eligible f or re lief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture.R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER 7
D
Th e B I A u

ph e ld t he I J’s c on c lus ion s th a t Reg alado is ineligible f

or asylum, withholding of remova l a nd relief under the C onvention Ag ainst Torture. T he B I A held that Reg alado did no t have a po lit ic a l op ini on that c ou ld se rv e a s the basis for a n asylum clai m beca

use he w as not “politically or ideolog ically

opposed to the i deals espoused by the FML N.” Rather, Reg alado mer ely

showed that he was opposed to the FML N’s violent a ctivities f

or which he was be ing r ecr uited, includi n gdemonstrations involving the bur ning of tires and brea king of windows. Fur

ther, t h e BI A held that Reg alado did not show that he was perse cuted on acc ount of a political op ini on
. The B I A c on c lud e d th at Re g a la do “ fa ile d to
e s t a b l i s hth atatl e a s t o n e c e n tr a l r e a s o nf o r th e F M LN members’ conduct towa rd him wa s t i ed to his actua l or imp ute d p oli tic a l op ini on s, rathe r t ha n to his me re re fu sa l to join their ranks a

nd assist them in their violent activities.” Finally , the BIA found that Reg alado wa s ineligible f or re lief under the Convention A g ainst Torture beca use he d i dnot sh o w th at h e w a s m o r e l i k e l y th an n o t t o b e t o rtur e d if returne d to E l Salvador or that a ny torture would be inflicted
at th e ins tig atio n o f o r w iththe c on se nt o f p ub lic of fi c ia ls.
Discussion
To be e lig ibl e fo r a sylum , Re g a la do mus t pr ov e that he is
a re fug ee; that is, that he is an a lien “who is u n ab le or
unwi lli ngto ret

ur n to , a nd is una ble or unwi lli ngto a

va il himself . . . of the prote ction of, [a] country beca use of perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on account of ra ce, r elig ion, national ity , membership in a pa rticular
so c ia l g ro up , o r p oliti cal op in io n.” 8 U .S. C. § 1101(a) (42)( A). In order to establish past perse cution, anR EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER

8

a pp lic ant mus t show that he or sh e su ff e re d h arm that r ise s to the le ve l of

pe rs e c uti on

“ on a c c ount of

” a statut or ily protec ted g round. “To de monstrate a ne x us betwee n the har m [an asylum applicant] suffere d and his political opinion, [ the applicant] must show (1) t h at he held, or his persec utors believed that he held, a political opinion; and (2) that he wa s harme d beca

use of that political opinion.” Zhiqiang Hu v. Holder , 652 F.3d 1011, 1017 ( 9th Cir. 2011) (qu o t ing Baghdasaryan v. Ho l der , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 ( 9th Cir. 2010)). Eve n without having suf fer ed past pe rsec u t i on, an a pp lic ant m ay e sta

bli sh e lig ibi lity fo r as ylum ba se d on a w e llfounded f ear of future perse cuti on. See Lopez- Galarza v. I.N.S. , 99 F.3d 954, 958 ( 9th Cir. 1996) (“Past per secution and a w ell -f

o u nded fe ar of

future pe rsec ution provide separ ate a venues f or establishingelig ibilit y

for a sylum.”).
We g ra nt Re g a la do ’s pe tit ion and re mand wi th r e sp e c t to his a pp lic atio ns fo r a sylum

and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. With re sp e c t to a sylum e lig ibi lity , the B I A fa ile d to addre ss whether Reg alado e stablished a we ll-fou n d ed fear of future pe rs e c ut ion on

a c c ount o f a

pr ote c te d g ro un d, and

wi th
re sp e c t to wi thh old ing of re mov a l, t he B I A a lso ne g le c te d to addre ss the likelihood of future perse cution on such g round. This court’s re view of a BIA dec ision is l imited to the decision itself, and doe s not include the I J ’s dec ision, ex cept to the extent that the B I A expressly adopted the I J ’s opinion. See Zhiqiang Hu , 652 F.3d at 1016. “In revie wing the decision of the B I A, we c onsider only the g rounds re lied upon by that ag ency . I f we conclude that the B I A’s dec ision
c ann ot b e su sta ine d u

po n it s r e a so nin g , w e mus t remand to allow t he age ncy to decide any issues remainingin the case .” An dia v . A sh c ro

ft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 ( 9th Cir. 2004).R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER 9

Reg alado argued bef

ore both the B I A and this court that he has a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution on a pr ote c te d g ro un d, ind e pe ndent of his a lle g e d p a st p e r s e c u ti o n
. T h e B IA r e je c te d th is c o n te n ti o nw ithout
e x p l an at i o n
. T h e r e i s n o i n d i c at i o n , f o r e x amp l e , th a tth e B IA considere d the FML

N’s tra nsition from a guerilla g roup to a reco gn ized polit ical par

ty with seats in g overnme nt when evaluating the obje ctive basis for Reg alado ’s fe ar of

future perse cution. Absent any rea soning from the BIA, we c annot find that s u b stantial evidenc e supports the c onclusion that Reg alado ha s not established a we ll-founded f ear o f future perse cution or that he is more likely than not to be perse cuted i f h e r e tur n s t o E l S a l v a d o r
. T h e r e f

o r e , w e r e m an d

t o th e B IA to determine wheth er R egala do is eligible f or asy lum or withholding of r emoval i n v i ew of his avowed f ear
. See Me nd e z- Gu tie rre

z v . A sh c ro

ft , 340 F.3d 865, 870 ( 9th Cir. 2003) (“ [I ]tis not for us to determine in the f irst instance whether [t he applica

nt] has shown a w el l-founded f ear of perse cution.”). Upon re mand, when the BIA deter mines whether Reg alado ha s a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution on the basis of a protected ground, the B I A must re-e valuate whether R e g a l a d o ’ s o p p o s i t i o nt o th e v i o l e n ta c t i v i t i e s o f th e F M LN c o n s t i tu t e s a

p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n
. Ini t s p r i o r d e c i s i o n , th e B IA err ed as a

matter of la

w in hold i ng that opposition t o the FML N’s violence could not be a political opinion. When a political org anization has a pattern of committing violent acts in fur

thera nce of , or to promote, its politi cs, such strategy is polit ical in nature; i t advanc es a political g oal throug h cer

t ai n means rather than othe rs. Ther efor e, opposition t o the s t rateg y of using violence c an constitute a politic al opi nion that is a protecte d g round for asylumR EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER

10

In cases d eci d ed af

t er El i as
- Zac ar i as , t hi s co urt has hel d be l i ef s ab o ut 5 th e us e o f vio le n c e to b e p o lit ic a l o p inio n s. See Bor j a v

. I NS, 175 F. 3d 7 3 2 , 7 3 6 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (e n b a n c ) (c o n stru ing a n a sylu m a p p lica n t’s
rev ulsi o n a t an arm ed gro up ’ s violen ce ag ainst w o m en an d ch i l d ren as a p o lit ic a l o p inio n ), s upers ede d by s t at ut e on ot her gr ounds a s s t at ed by P aru s s i m ov a v

. M ukasey , 5 5 5 F .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 3 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); Laz o- M aj ano v. I NS, 8 1 3 F.2d 1 4 3 2 , 14 3 5 (9t h C i r. 19 8 7 ) ( ho l d i ng t hat a be l i ef t hat t he
ar med f orce s ar e r es po ns i bl e f or l awl es s nes s , r ape, t ort ur e, an d m ur der
c o n stitute s a p o lit ic a l o p ini o n ), over r ul ed on ot her gr ou nd s by F i s her v. I NS, 79 F. 3d 955 ( 9t h Ci r
. 19 96 )

. Li ke t hi s co urt , t he Second C i r cui t ha s r ej ect ed a n “ i mp over i s hed” vi ew of wh at may cons t i t ut e a pol i t i cal
o p inio n
. See e. g. , Zha ng v. G on z al es , 426 F. 3d 540, 546–49 ( 2d Ci r
. 2005) (ci t i ng O s or i o v

. I

NS , 18 F.3d 10 1 7 (2d C i r. 1 9 9 4 )) ; a cc ord M an z ur v. purposes. Cf. Grava v. I.N.S. , 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 ( 9th Cir. 20 00 ) (“W he n th e a lle g e d c or ru pti on is i ne xtri c a

bly intertwined with g overn m ental operation, the exposure and pr os e c uti on

of su c h a n a bu se o f pu

bli c tr us t is ne c e ssa

ri ly po lit ic a l.” ); Rey es-Gue rr ero v. I.N.S. , 192 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1999) (findingthat death thre ats ag ainst a prose cutor who was pur suing an embezzlement case a g ainst members of an opposingpolitical party amounted to per secution on the ba sis of a po lit ic a l op ini on

be c a us e it w a s d if

fi c ult to differ enti ate political fr om non-political crimes involving g o v e r n m e n to f f i c i a l s i nth e a

p p l i c an t ’ s h o m e c o un tr

y )

. In Grava and

Re y es- Gu e rre ro , this court found t hat wher e corr u p t i o nwa s en d em i c t o a p o l i t i ca l o rga n i z at i o n , o p position to the corr

uption amounted to opp osition t o the political org anization, even thoug h the poin t o f contention was not purely political. Grava , 2 0 5 F

. 3 d at1 1 8 1

. S i m i l ar l y, opposition to a political pa rty ’s violent a ctivities ma

y amount to o pp os iti on

to t he po li ti c a l pa

rt y its e lf , if the vio le nc e is integ ral to the pa

rty and inextricably

linked to its pol itical activities, rathe r than c onstitut ing mere unr elated a cts of violence pe rpetra

ted by individuals who happen to be par t of a political g roup. 5R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER 11

U

. S. D ept

. of

H om el an d Sec. , 49 4 F.3d 28 1 , 29 4 (2d C i r. 20 0 7 ). Be cause the B I A er

red as a matter

of law, it did not conduct the nece ssary fac tual inquiry as to whethe r Reg alado had a pr otected political opinion. Name ly , beca use it did not
rec og nize that opposit ion to the FML N’s violent ac tivi t ies could amount to a political opinion, the B I A did not examine whether those violent ac t ivities were in f urthera nce of the FML N’s politics o r mere ly

apolitical ac ts of violence. Additionally , th e BIA did not determine the extent to which vio le nc e is c ha

ra c te ri sti c of the F ML

N’ s p oli tic a l a c tiv iti e s. These f actu al issues are not for us to deter mine here

. See Mon t es-Lopez v . Gonzales , 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 ( 9th Cir. 20 07 ) ( ho ldi ng that this co ur t may no t dec ide a

c la im unle ss the B I A has done so in the first instance ( citing I.N.S. v. Ventura, 5 3 7 U

. S

. 1 2 , 1 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( p e r c ur i am ) ) )

. T h e B IA mus t make thi s d e te rm in ati on up on re mand a s p art of its evaluation of whether

Reg alado ha s a well-founded f ear of future pe rsec ution on the basis of a political opinion.
Th e B I A f

ur the r h e ld t

hat Re g a la do wa s n ot i n the pas t perse cuted “ on acc ount of” his opposition to t h e FML N’s violence. Substantial e vidence supports this conclusion be c a us e , e ve n if the B I A ha d c or re c tly he ld that op po sit ion to a political org anization’s v iolent activities can c onstitut e a political opinion, t h e rec ord does not compe l us to hold t hat Reg alado wa s attacke d on account of any principled opposition t o the FML

N or its violence, r at h er t han on
acc ount of his failure to c ooperate in the FML N’s re cruitment eff orts. Under

the REAL

I D Act of

2005, an asy

lum
a pp lic ant m

us t sh owtha

t th e pr ote c te d a c tiv ity

wa s “ a t le a st one ce ntral re ason” in the minds of the persecutors for
atta c kin gthe a

pp lic ant. 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 1) (B )( i) ; se e als o Parussimova v. M

ukasey , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009).R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER

12 Reg a la d o p r e s e n te d

li tt le e v id e n c e th at h is a tt a c k e r s w e re mot ivate d b y

any thi ngoth e r t

ha n h is r e fu sa l to joi n th e m, inc re a se the ir

ra nk s, a nd pa rt ic ipate in t

he ir vio le nt a c tiv iti e s. To have succe ssfully

dem o n strated pa st persec ution on the basis of a political opini on, Reg alado must have shown that he wa s attacke d beca

use of his opposi tion to the FML N’s i d e o l o g y o r

th e i r v i o l e n tm e th o d s o f

p r o m o t i n g th a ti d e o l o g y. Reg alado of

fer ed no evide nce to show that his attacker s were even a war e of h i s p o l itical beliefs. See Sangha v . I.N.S. , 10 3 F .3 d 1 48 2, 14 88 (9 th C ir . 1 99 7) (“ [T]he a pp li cant mu st

. . . sh ow that thi s op ini on wa s art ic ulate d s uf fi c ie ntl y fo r i t to be the basis of his past or anticipated pe rsec ution.” (quoting Ramos-Vasque

z v. I.N.S. , 57 F.3d 8 57, 863 (9th Cir. 1995) (interna l quotation marks omitted))).
Wit h respe ct to Reg alado’ s claim for r elief unde r the Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e , s ub sta

nti al e vid e nc e su

pp or ts the B I A’ s con c lus ion

that Re g a la do fa ile d to sh owthat he is more likely

than not to be tortured “by or at the instigation of or with the conse nt or ac quiesce nce of a p u b lic officia l or other pe rson ac ting in an of ficial c apac ity ” if he returns to El Salvador. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (1). Reg alado has not shown th atp u b l i c o f f i c i a l s w e r e aw a r e o f th e at t a c k s b y th e F M LN o r th atp u b l i c o f f i c i a l s w o u l d

c a u s e o r a c q u i e s c e i nF M LN attacks on Reg alado in the f uture. See O rnel a s -Chavez v

. Gonzales , 458 F.3d 1052, 1060 ( 9th Cir. 2006) (holding that public officia ls acquiesc e in torture if they “could have inferr ed the a lleg ed torture was taking plac e, re mained wi llf ull y bli nd to i t, o r s imp ly sto od

by be c a us e of the ir inability or unwillingne ss to oppose it”). There fore , we de ny Reg alado’ s petition with respect to his claim for r elief unde r the Convention Ag ainst Torture.R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER 13
Conclusion
We reve rse the B I A’s denia l of Reg alado’ s applications for a sylum and withhold i n g of re moval, and re mand for the BIA to deter

mine whether Reg alado ha s a we ll-founded f ear of per secution on acc ount of a political opinion or whethe r he is m o re likely

than not to be per secute d on acc ount of a po lit ica l op ini on . We de ny the pe tit ion

wi th r e g ard s to Re g a la do ’s c la ims fo r r e lie f und e r t he Conve nti on

Ag a ins t Torture

. Ea c h p art y sh a ll b e ar i ts o wn

c os ts o n a

pp e a l.

P etition G RANTED AND REMANDED in part; DENIED in p art.

KLEINFE L D, S en i o r C i rc u i tJ u d ge, d i s s en t i n g:
Ire sp e c tf ull y dis se nt. The majority

conclude s corr ectly that despite the vicious beating s Reg alado-Escobar suffe red, substantial e vidence supported the B I A’ s conclusion that he w as beaten for decliningto join up, not because of h i s p o litical opinion, toward which the F ML

N was e vidently

indiffer ent. As the majority corr ectly points out, “the rec ord does not compel us to hold that Rega lado was attacke d on acc ount of any principled opposition to the F ML N or its violence, r ather

thanR EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER

14

M aj

. O p. a t 11. 1

M aj

. O p. a t 12. 2

Zhi qi an g H u v. H ol der , 65 2 F.3d 10 1 1 , 10 2 0 (9t h C i r. 20 1 1 ). 3

8 U

. S. C. § 1101( a) ( 42) ( “ T h e t er m ‘ r ef u g ee ’ mea n s
. . . an y pe rs on 4

w h o is o u tsid e a n y c o u n tr y o f su c h p e rs o n ’s na tio n a lit y . . . an d w h o is
u n abl e or u n wi l l i n g t o r et u r n t o
. . . t h at c ou n t r y be ca u s e of pe r s ec u t i on or on acc ount of his fail u re to cooper ate in the F ML N’s rec ruitment eff

orts.” 1 The majority

never theless re mands for f

indings on futur e p e r s e c u ti o n
. T h is ma

k e s n o s e n s e , s in c e “ Re g a la d o o ffe red
no e vid e nc e to sho w that his att a c ke rs we re e ve n aw are of his political beliefs.” The majority conclude s that the BIA has 2 failed to unde rstand that opposition to violenc e may itself be a political opinion for which some one mig ht be per s ec uted. That would be a

n irrele vant i nquiry

on this recor d, which doubtless expl ains why

the B IA ar

ticulated no philosophical views on the que stion. Neither they nor we nee d re ac h the issue of whe n, if eve r, views on violence constitute a political opinion. Once a

bsence o f a factua l nexus connec ting the beating s to Rega lado -E scobar ’s political opinion was
e st abl ishe d b y

su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e on

the re c or d ta

ke n a s a wh ole , th e re wa s n o g oo d r e a so n for the B I A t o s pe c ulate further about such a possible ne x us in g ener al or in the future.
As we he ld in Zhiqiang Hu v. H older , “the ne x us inquiry
an d th e p e r s e c u ti o nin qu ir y ar e d is ti n c t.” I f alleg ed 3 perse cution – whether

suffe red in the past or fea red in the future – is not “on acc ount of ” one of the f

i v e p ro tected g roun d s , it

c an n o t f o r m t h e b a s is o f

a s u c c e s s f u l a s ylum
c la im. Under

the REAL

I D Act, the a

pplic ant bea

rs the 4R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER 15

a wel l

- f o und ed f

ear of p ers ecu tio n o n acco unt of race, rel i gi o n, n at i on al i t y , m embe r s h i p i n a pa r t i cu l ar s oci al g r ou p, or pol i t i ca l opi n i on

. . . . ”). Likewi se, t o be el i gi b l e f o r wi t hho l d i ng of rem o val , an ap p l i cant
m u st d e m o n stra te tha t his “lif e o r fre e d o m w o u ld b e thr e a te n e d i n [h is h o m e ] c o u n try b e c a u se o f [h is] ra c e , r e ligio n , n a tio n a lit y, m e m b e rs h ip in
a p a rtic u la r so c ia l gr o u p , o r p o lit ic a l o p inio n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 ); 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 2 ); Zet i no v. H ol der , 6 2 2 F

. 3 d 1 0 0 7 , 10 1 5 (9t h C i r. 2 0 1 0 ).

8 U

. S.C

. § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1)(B )( i ) (“ T he b urden of pro o f i s o n t he ap p l i cant 5 t o e s t abl i s h t h at t h e appl i ca n t i s a r ef u g ee , wi t h i n t h e mea n i n g of s ec t i on 11 01 ( a) ( 42 ) ( A ) of thi s t i t l e. T o es t abl i s h t hat t he appl i can t i s a r ef ug ee wi t hi n t he meani ng of s uch s ect i on, t he appl i can t mus t es t abl i s h t hat r ace , r el i gi on, na t i onal i t y , memb er s hi p i n a p ar t i cul ar soci al group, or po l i t i cal
o p i ni o n was or wi l l be at l east one cent ral reas o n f o r persecutin g t he
a p p lica n t.”) ; s ee al s o P arus s i m ova v. M ukasey , 5 5 5 F .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 0

– 4 1 (9 th C i r. 20 0 9 ). burden t o show nexus by showing that a prote cted ground
wa s “one centra l rea son” for his persec ution. Re g a la d- 5 Escobar did not show that the FML N knew of his polit ical op ini on , le t a lon e that it

wa s “ on e c e ntr a l r e a so n” fo r t he ir beating and threatening him. And he pre sented no e vidence wh atso e ve r i mpl yingthat th e F ML N w ou ld l ikel y

be c ome awa re of his po lit ic a l op ini on in t

he futur e . H is a

rgume nt i n his brief is that his “Past P er s ecution Also Amounts to a Wel l- F ound e d F e ar o f F utu re Pe rse c uti on

B a se d Upo n H is Pol iti c a l O pin ion .” B e c a us e he ha s n ot m e t hi s b ur de n to sh owa ne xus c onne c tin g his poli ti cal op ini on to h is p a st beat in g s, Reg alado- Escobar has no ar g ument reg ardingfuture pe rs e c uti on

that th e B I A n e e de d to a dd re ss.
I t is ha rd to se e why we a

re pu bli sh ingan o pin ion

in t his
case at all, except to wade into ideologica l speculation about whether a “strateg y ” of f

avoringor opposi n g v iolence “ can constitute a political opinion that is a prot ec t ed g round,”R EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER

16

M aj

. O p. a t 9–10. 6

See Edmun d W i l s on , T o t h e Fi n l an d St at i on : A St u dy i n t h e W ri t i ng 7
a n d A c ting o f H isto ry 2 6 5

– 2 8 8 ( 1 9 4 0 ); G e ra ld R u n k le , A n a rc h ism : O ld and N ew 2 7 , 96

– 9 8 (19 7 2 ). independe ntly

of the political goa ls meant to be adva nced by the “strateg y .” The recor d does not require this speculation.

6 A l th o u g hR e g a l a d o - E s c o b ar d i d n o tw an tt o j o i nth e F M LN at least pa

rtly beca use he did not wan t “t o burn tires in the street, a lso to break window s i n the city ,” substantial evidenc e, as the majority

conce des, supported the BI A’s view that the FML

N did not c are what his opinions wer e, and be at him “[b] eca

use [he] di dn’t join their party .” This re cord doe s not require that the BI A do the case over to addre ss whether Re g a la do -E scobar’s op ini on s a bo ut t he us e of vio le nc e to achie ve political ends may themselves be a prote cted ground, be c a us e his op ini on s w e re no t th e re a so n f or the be a tin g s. The que stion whether a political opinion about the use of violence in politics, independe ntly of the political g oal to be
a c hie ve d, is a pr ote c te d g ro un d, wi ll be dif fi c ult , whe n a

nd if
we ever have to a ddress it. Congr ess jus t s ai d“political op ini on ,” and

did no t sp e c if

y wh at kind of opin ion

in i ts definition of “r efug ee.” I f any political opinion suffices, then perse cution on acc ount of favor ing viole n ce would entitle a person to re fug ee status as much as pe rsec ution on account of op po sin gvio le nc e . F avo ri ngvio le nc e wa s a po pu lar t he me in o l d anar chist advoca cy by J ohann Most and Micha el Ba kunin, who s up ported “ propag anda by the dee d,” and

7 remain s a th e me in t

he mor e mod e rn

a dv oc a c y

of F ra ntz Fa non and per

haps Edwa

rd Abbe y . There has l o n g been a
ro manti c no tio n f

loatin g aro un d in

many ra dic a l mo ve me nts , favor ing all sorts of ends, that violence “liberates cre ativeR EG AL ADO -E SCOBA R V

. H OL DER 17

Fasci sm: A n A nt ho l o gy 13 9

– 1 4 0 (N at hanael G reene ed

. , 19 6 8 ). 8 moral for ces in human soc iety wh i ch lead to social and national re newa l.” Did Congr ess intend to define perse cuted 8
a dv oc ate s o f v iol e nc e a s r e fu g e e s?
Ther e i s no need in this case to answer that question. Wit hout know ing that Reg alado- Escobar had a poli tical op ini on , th e F ML

N c ou ld n ot a

nd c ann ot e ng a g e in perse cution – past or future – on acc ount of his politi cal opinion. W e ca

n decide whether

an advoc ate of

terror bombings pe rsec uted for his opinion favor ing violence, f or example, is entitl ed to re fug ee status, when we g et the ca se. We should deny the petit ion, not remand for examination of the unne cessa

ry and potentially

thorny issue of whe ther ref ug ee status on a ccount of perse cution for political opinion applies, whe re the opinion is notabout some political end, but about violence as such.