2009 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 Thir d C ir c uit 12-21-2009 

# D e H e rre r a v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3683

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D e H e r r e r a v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 64. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/64NOT 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. 08- 3683

___________ M AR I T Z A R AM OS DE HE RR E RA , Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 ( A gencyN o. A 072- 529- 077) I m m i gr at i on J udge: D ani el A . M ei s ner

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber16, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber21, 2009)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. M ar i t za Ram os D e H err er a ( “R amos”) , a thi r t y - four - y ear - ol d nat i ve and c i t i zen of G uat emal a, s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval ent er ed byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) . We wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2 I. R amos ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1994 w i t houti ns pect i on, and fi l ed an ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum at t h at t im e. In 2 0 0 6 , the g o v ern m en t serve d a N o ti ce to A p p ea r, and R amos fi l ed an upda t ed as y l um appl i cat i on. A ta hea r i ng befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , R amos conc eded r emovabi l i t yas an al i en pr es entw i t houtbei ng admi t t ed or par ol ed, and s he pur s ued appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , r el i ef unde r t h e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tTo r tu r e ( “ CAT” ) , a n d c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1229b( b) ( 1) . T he I J deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng t hatR amos fai l ed t o m eetherbur den of pr oof, butgr ant ed vol unt arydepartur e. T he B I A aff

i r m ed, i s s ui ng i t s ow n deci s i on. T he B I A expl ai ned thatR amos s oughtas y l um bas ed on a c l ai m t hats he s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof her m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, w hi ch s he def i ned as “y oung G uat emal an femal es t ar get ed forr ecrui t m entbyt he guer i l l as and w ho s uffe r ed per s ecut i on of a s exual natur e i f theyr efus ed t o as s i s tt he guer i l l as . ” W hi l e the evi dence s how ed thatR amos w as har as s ed and thr eat ened byguer i l l as i n G uat emal a, s he w as neverhar m ed phy s i cal l yor se x u a lly , an d th u s th e B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t R a m o s is n o t a m e m b e r o f th e g ro u p sh e is at t empt i ng t o defi ne, and that , fur t her m or e, t he al l eged gr oup l acks s oci al vi s i bi l i t y . T he B I A hel d t hatR amos fai l ed t o pr ovi de s uffi ci entevi dence t hatt he thr eat s s he r ece i ved ro se to th e lev e l o f

p e rse c u tio n . T h e B IA a lso f o u n d in su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. E ven as s um i ng t hatR amos coul d es t abl i s h t he3

e x i s t e n c e o f

h e rp a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , t h e B I A h e l d t h a tR a m o s i s n o tc u r r e n t l y a m ember of thatgr oup beca us e s he has m atur ed i n age s i nce 1994, w as neverhar m ed by t he guerr i l l as , and has notes t abl i s hed thatfemal es of herage f ace t he s ame t hr eat s as fe m ales o f g rad e sc h o o l age . T h e B IA also h eld th at R am o s fa il ed to m ee t th e m o re s t r i ngentbur den of pr oof forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and di d notes t abl i s h undert he C A T th a t s h e m o re lik e ly th a n n o t f a c e s to rt u re in G u a te m a la . Fi nal l y , t he B I A hel d t hatR amos di d notm eetherbur den of pr oof forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , w hi ch s he s oughtbas ed on a c l ai m t hathers i x- y ear - ol d U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen so n w o u ld su ff

er “ ex ce p ti o n al an d ex tr em elyu n u su al ha rdsh ip” if re m o v ed . T h e B IA n o te d th e re c o rd e v id e n c e o f d im in is h e d e d u c a tio n a l o p p o rt u n itie s , p o o r h e a lth c a re , a l ow erl i vi ng s t andar d, and cr i m e i n G uat emal a, and al s o cons i der ed the chi l d’ s r el at i ve y out h, abi l i t yt o s peak Spani s h, good heal t h, and fa m i l ys uppor ti n G uat emal a. B as ed on th is e v id e n c e , the B IA h e ld th a t R a m o s d id n o t sh o w a n e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly u n u s u a l h a rd s h ip . R a m o s tim e ly f ile d a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w in th is C o u rt . II . W e fi r s tcons i derourj ur i s di ct i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he B I A ’ s fi nal o r d e ro f r e mo v a l , i n c l u d i n g t h e d e n i a l s o f a s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , a n d CA T r e l i e f. S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . H o w e v e r , d e s p i t e R a m o s ’ s a r g u m e n tt o t h e c o n t r a r y, w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b (b )( 1 ). “Thi s C our tgener al l yl acks j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons m ade unde r

### Th e BIA ci te d andre li ed up onthe s ta nd ards se t forth in In re : Gon za le z- 1 

### Reci nas, 23 I. &N. Dec . 467 (BIA 20 02 ) ( en banc), In re: An dazola -Rivas , 23 I.&N. Dec. 3 1 9 (B IA2 0 0 2 ) (enb an c), an dInre: M o nreal-A g u in ag a, 2 3 I.& N . D ec. 5 6 (B IA2 0 0 1 ). A f ter co n sid erin g th e relev ant f acto rs id entif

iedinth ese cases, th e B IAco n clu d ed : “ Whi l e a djus t i ng t o l i fei n Guat e m a l am ay be di ffi c ul t

for [Ram os ]’ s s on, hi s youth, 4 § 1229b r egar di ng canc el l at i on of r emoval . ” M endez - R ey es v. A t t ’ yG en. , 428 F. 3d 187, 1 8 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (c iti n g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(i)). W e h a v e h e ld th a t a d e ter m in a tio n re g a rd in g th e “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip ” re q u ire m e n t is a “qui nt es s ent i al di s cr et i onaryj udgm ent . ” M endez - M or anche l v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 176, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . J ur i s di ct i on i s r et ai ned i n s uch ca s es onl yt o cons i der“cons t i tut i onal claim s o r qu esti o n s o f law . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ). R a m o s c o n ten d s th a t sh e ra ise s a “ q u e stio n o f law ” b e c a u se th e B IA h e ld h e r c laim t o a “he i ght ened l egal s t andar d” by“i gnor [i ng] t he cumul at i ve ef fec t ” of the har ds hi ps t hathers on w oul d fac e. A r evi ew of R amos’ s br i efi ng, how ever , r evea l s t hather ar gum entamount s t o no m or e than an a t t empt t o r ear gue the per s uas i venes s of the har ds hi p evi dence . Such an ar gum enti s notexempt fr om t he j ur i s di ct i onal bar . See M endez - M or anche l , 338 F. 3d at179 ( “[W ] e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he i s s ue M endez pr es ent s on appea l - - w hethert he [BIA ] and [I J ] w er e corr ecti n det er m i ni ng t hathe does notm eett he har ds hi p r equi r ement s forcanc el l at i on of deport at i on. ”) . W e s ee no i ndi cat i on t hatt he B I A appl i ed an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d her e, and the B I A cannotbe sa id to h a v e a p p lied a n im p e rm iss ib ly“ h e ig h ten e d ” sta n d a rd m e re lyb e c a u se it ch o se to d e n yre lief

a f ter c o n sid e rin g th e re c o rd e v id e n c e b e f o re it. T h u s, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to

1

### he a l th, abi l i ty t o c omm uni c at e i n Spani s h, and a c c e s s t o fami l y s houl d he lp hi m

thr ough his a dj ustm ent period.” Ramos contends that the BIA in effect require d h er to showthat r e m ova lwoul d work an “ unc ons c i onabl e ” har ds hip on he r s on. Howe ve r , nothi ng i n the BI A’ s de c i s i on i ndi c at e s that i t de vi at e d fr om

i t s e s t abl i s he d s t andar ds or r e qui r e d a s howi ng fr om

Ram os be yond that

norm a l l y r e qui r e d t o e s t abl i s h an “exc ept i onal and e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip 

### .”Indeed, the BIA’s deci si onis consis te nt with In re : Mo nrea l- Ag uinaga, which ho lds t hat, to es ta

blis h “excepti on aland extre m ely unusual h ard sh ip ,” analienm

u st sh o wth at th e qu alif

yin g relativ e w o u ldsu f

f er h ard sh ip “ s ub s t anti a l l y

be yon d”that

wh i c h w ou l d b e e xp e c t e d t o r e s ul t from r e m ov a l . 23 I . &N. De c . at 60. Ram os ’ s s ugge s t i on that the BI A “ a dopt e d” the I J ’ s de c i s i on i s not s upport e d by 2 

### th e reco rd . T h e B IAclearly co n du ctedits o wnan aly sis, an dthu s o ur rev iewis limitedto the BI A’ s de c i s i on. 5 re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f

c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. III . T ur ni ng t o t he r emoval or der , w her e, as her e, the B I A r ender ed i t s ow n deci s i on, w e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on, nott he I J ’ s deci s i on. See W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 2 225, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . “The B I A ’ s concl us i ons r egar di ng evi dence of pas tper s ecut i on and the w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on ar e fi ndi ngs of fa ct , ” r evi ew ed s ol el yfor “s ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . U nder t he d eferent i al subst anti al evidence st and ard, t he B IA ’s fi nd i ng s “m ustbe u ph el d u nles s t he evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A bdi l l e v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e fi r s taddr es s R amos’ s as y l um cl ai m . T he A t t or neyG ener al m aygr antas y l um i f the al i en es t abl i s hes t hats he i s a “r efuge e, ” w hi ch r equi r es t he al i en t o pr ove thats he w as per s ecut ed i n t he pas torhas a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on due t o, i nt er

### The BI A di d not m ake ade t e rmi nat i on that Ram os l a c ke d c r e dibi l i ty ( nor di d the 3 

### IJ), an dthu s w e treat R am o s’s testim o ny as cred ib le. S ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 )(B )(iii) (“[ I] f n o adv erse cred ib ility

d etermin atio nis exp licitly m ad e, th e ap p licant o r w itn ess shal l have a

rebu tt ablepres um

ption o f cre dibili ty

onappeal .” ). 6 al i a, m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) . A “part i cul ar so c ial g ro u p ” re f

e rs to “ a g ro u p o f

p e rso n s a ll o f

w h o m sh a re a c o m m o n , im m u tab le char act er i s t i c. ” Lukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 171 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . “[W ] hat evert he comm on char act er i s t i c thatdefi nes t he gr oup, i tm us tbe one t hatm ember s of the gr oup ei t hercannotchange , ors houl d notbe r equi r ed t o change beca us e i ti s fundament al t o t hei ri ndi vi dual i dent i t i es orcons ci ence s . ” I d. ( quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d ). R a m o s a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d in f a ili n g to re c o g n ize th a t sh e w a s s u b jec ted to pas tper s ecut i on bas ed on mem ber s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup ( “y oung G uat emal an femal es t ar get ed forr ecrui t m entbyt he guer i l l as and w ho s uffe r ed per s ecut i on of a s exual natur e i f theyr efus ed t o as s i s tt he guer i l l as ”) , and thats he i s t her efor e ent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on of futur e per s ecut i on. T he r ecor d, how ever , does notcompel a conc l us i on c o n tr a ry to th a t r e a c h e d b yth e B IA . A s t he B I A obs er ved, t he gr oup t hatR amos at t empt s t o defi ne compr i s es femal es w ho s uffe r ed s exual abus e orhar m i f theyr efus ed as s i s t ance t o t he guer i l l as . B utR amos does notcl ai m t hats he w as har m ed phy s i cal l yors exual l y . I n 1986, w hen s he w as age 3 t w el ve, guer i l l as began ve rbal l yhar as s i ng and thr eat eni ng R amos as s he l efts chool eac h

### R am o s m arriedinGu atem ala b ut h as sin ce sep aratedf ro m h er hu sb an d , wh o also 4 

### c am e t o the Uni t e d St at e s and wa s pl a c e d i n r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs . Not abl y , Ram os as se rt s i n h er

brie fing that

her husbandwas “ on ceshot by the gueri ll as ,”bu t t

his a pp ears to mis st at e the re cord. I n h er te stimony

befo rethe I J, Ram os st at ed that the gueri ll as o n ce “f o llo w ed[ h er hu sb an d ] an dth ey sh o t at hi m . ” A82 ( e m

pha s i s a dde d) . The r e i s no e vi de nc e that

the gue ri l l a s e ve r

s hot he r hus band. 7 day , cl ai m i ng t hatt heyw oul d ki l l R amos and he rfami l yi f theyr efus ed s uppor tfort he guer i l l as . R amos cl ai m s t hatt he guer i l l as for ced s om e of he rs chool m at es t o s er ve as pr os t i tut es , and thatt heyw er e r aped a nd t or tur ed. R amos qui thi gh s chool and r emai ned in f e a r o f th e g u e rillas e v e n a f

ter sh e m a rrie d in 1 9 9 0 . R a m o s f e a rs r e tu rn in g to 4 G uat emal a bec aus e “pe opl e” w i l l know t hats he w as i n t he U ni t ed St at es , and thats he w ill b e k id n a p p e d o r k ill e d . T h is re c o rd sim p lyd o e s n o t co m p e l a f in d in g th a t R a m o s is o r w as a m em b er o f th e g rou p that sh e se ek s to d ef ine (a ssu m ing , arg u en d o , that R am o s’s p rop o sed g rou p co u ld q u ali fyas a “p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p ” f o r asy lum p u rpo ses). R amos ar gues t hatt he thr eat s s he endur ed r i s e t o t he l evel of pas tper s ecut i on b ec au se “ the th rea ts ag ains t [h er] w ere su ff ici en tl yim m inen t and seriou s. ” T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “u n f

u lf ill e d th re a ts m u st b e o f

a h ig h lyim m in e n t an d m e n a c in g n a tu re in or dert o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. ” Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . O ur re v iew o f

th e re c o rd d o e s n o t co m p e l a f in d in g th a t th e th re a ts a g a in st R a m o s ris e to th is lev e l. A lth o u g h th e th re a ts th a t R a m o s re c e iv e d a re tro u b lin g , the yw e re n o t “s u f f icie n tly im m in e n t o r c o n c re te ... t o b e c o n sid e re d p a st p e rse c u tio n .” Id . at 1 6 5 (re jec tin g c laim t hat threat s of ph y si cal m i streatm ent, detent i on , or st eri l i zat i on am ou nted t o p ast

### A lth o u g hR am o s su g g ests inp assin g inh er o p en in g b rief th at th e B IAerredin 5 

### r e je c t i ng he r

a ppl i c at i on for

wi thhol di ng of r e m ova lunde r 8 U. S. C. § 1231(b) ( 3) ( A) , s he sets f o rthn o arg um ent o nth e issu e. We d eem th is issu e w aiv edan dd o n o t ad dress it. S ee L ie v . A sh cro f

t, 3 9 6 F .3 d5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n .1 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). 8 per s ecut i on w her e nei t hert he al i en norm ember s of hi s fami l yw er e ac tual l yi m pr i s oned, beat en, s t er i l i zed, orot herw i s e phy s i cal l yhar m ed) ; s ee a l s o C havarr i a, 446 F. 3d at518 ( “[W ] e have r efus ed t o ext end as y l um pr ot ect i on fort hr eat s t hat , w hi l e s i ni s t erand cr edi bl e i n natur e, w er e nothi ghl yi m m i nentorconcr et e orfai l ed t o r es ul ti n anyphy s i cal viol ence o r har m t o the al i en. ”). F urther, becau se R am os fai l ed to est abli sh past p e rse c u tio n , the B IA c o rre c tlyh e ld th a t sh e w a s n o t en tit led to a p re su m p tio n o f a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . Fi nal l y , R amos cl ai m s t hatt he B I A err ed i n fai l i ng t o gr antC A T r el i ef. R amos 5 all eg es th at sh e w il l l ikelyb e torture d o r kil led in G u atem ala b y“g u eril las o r bym em b ers of othercr i m i nal gr oups , ” “e s peci al l yw hen the cr i m i nal el ement s r eal i ze thats he has been i n t he U ni t ed St at es and w i l l t hi nk t hats he i s w eal t hy . ” To be el i gi bl e for w i t hhol di ng of r emoval undert he C A T , R amos had t o s how t hati ti s m or e l i kel yt han not t hats he w oul d be t or tur ed i n G uat emal a. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) ; Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 174- 75 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T or tur e i s defi ned as t he i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng “byoratt he i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h t he cons entor a c q u i e s c e n c e o f

a p u b l i c o f

f i c i a l o ro t h e rp e r s o n a c t i n g i n a n o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y . ” 8 C. F . R. § 208. 18( a) ( 1) . “I n or dert o cons t i tut e t or tur e, an ac tm us tbe s peci f i cal l y i nt ended

to9

i nfl i cts ever e phy s i cal orm ent al pai n ors uffe r i ng. ” Pi err e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 528 F. 3d 180, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( en banc ) . T hatactm us tbe “‘ i nfl i ct ed byoratt he i ns t i gat i on of or w i t h t he cons entoracqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al orot herper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al c a p a c ity .’” I d . at 1 8 9 (q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(1 )). It is n o t en o u g h f o r p u b lic offi ci al s t o be “w i l l ful l ybl i nd” t o t or tur ous act s ; t he off i ci al s m us t“have t he goal or purpos e of i nfl i ct i ng s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng. ” I d. at190. T he r ecor d her e does notcompel a fi ndi ng t hatR amos m or e l i kel yt han notw i l l be t or tur ed byguer i l l as orm ember s of othergr oups , ort hatt he G uat emal an governm ent w o u ld tu rn a b lin d e y e to su c h a c tiv ity . A lth o u g h th e 2 0 0 6 S tate D e p a rtm e n t R e p o rt in t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatcr i m e r emai ns a w i des pr ead pr obl em i n G uat emal a, R amos poi nt s us t o no r ecor d evi dence t hatuncontr ol l ed “c r i m i nal el ement s ” i n G uat emal an s oci etyar e l i kel yt o t or tur e a na t i onal r etur ni ng fr om t he U ni t ed St at es beca us e they p e r c e i v e h e ra s w e a l t h y. I V. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.