1

I M G - 194 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. 09- 3287

___________ OSCA R Y AN CA RLO S ROD RI GU EZ- TEVEZ, 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 ( A gencyN o. A 099- 529- 702) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam M ill s

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

M ay12, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed : M ay14, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

O s carY anca r l os R odr i guez- T evez ( “R odr i guez- T evez ”) pet i t i ons for r evi ew of a de ci s i on r ender ed bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) on J ul y10,2

2 0 0 9 . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

R odr i guez- T evez , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of E l Sal vador , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n February2006, w hen he w as ni net een y ear s ol d. H e w as char ged as bei ng r emovabl e forent er i ng thi s countryw i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed. See I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “I N A ”) § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( I ) . H e appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l, an d f

o r re lief u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ), b a se d o n h is m ember s hi p i n a s oci al gr oup of El Sal vador an mal e s tudent s w ho r es i s t ed gang r ecrui tm entand on hi s pol i t i cal bel i ef thatgang vi ol ence w as w r ong.

O n J anuary11, 2008, the I J i s s ued an or al deci s i on, concl udi ng that R odr i guez- T evez w as notcr edi bl e and thathe fa i l ed t o pr ovi de ade quat e expl anat i on for the l ack of

r eas onabl yavai l abl e corr obor at i ng evi dence . A l t ernat i vel y , the I J det erm i ned thatR odr i guez- T evez w as notper s ecut ed on ac countof one of the fi ve pr ot ect ed gr ounds u n d e r th e IN A a n d th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, he c o u ld h a v e a v o id e d th e g a n g s b yre lo c a tin g to h is f a th e r’s h o u se , w h e re h e h a d sta y e d o v e r a sc h o o l b re a k w ith o u t in c id e n t.

T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d is m is s e d th e a p p e a l. A s s um i ng R odr i guez- T evez ’ s cr edi bi l i ty , the B I A hel d thathe fa i l ed t o s how per s ecut i on o n a c c o u n t o f

a sta tu to rilyp ro tec ted g ro u n d . T h e B IA a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t, ev e n if R odr i guez- T evez coul d s how pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof a s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ound, the G overnm ents ucce s s ful l yr ebutt ed the pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f earofB ecaus e R odr i guez- T evez di d notchal l enge the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s due 1 pr oces s cl ai m s i n hi s openi ng br i ef, thes e cl ai m s ar e w ai ved. “A n is sue i s w ai ved un l ess a partyr ai s es i ti n i t s openi ng br i ef, and forthos e purpos es , a pas s i ng r efe r ence t o an i s s ue

. . . w i l l nots uffi ce t o br i ng thati s s ue bef or e thi s court . ” Labor er s ’ I nt ’ l U ni on v. Fost er W h ee ler C o rp., 2 6 F . 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 9 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion o m itted). 3 futur e per s ecut i on w i th evi dence thatR odr i guez- T evez coul d r el ocat e t o hi s father ’ s pl ace i n E l Sal vadorw her e he w oul d be s afe fr om gang r ecrui tm entand har as s m ent . H avi ng d e ter m in e d th a t R o d rig u e z -T e v e z f a iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g e lig ib ili ty foras y l um , the B I A concl uded thathe fa i l ed t o m eetthe hi ghers t andar d of pr oof r equi r ed forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . T he B oar d al s o deni ed C A T r el i ef. T he B I A r ej ect ed R od ri gu ez-Te vez’s defecti ve tr anscri pt cl ai m and sum m ari l yden i ed h i s other due process c la im s . T h is tim e ly p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . 1 W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e re v iew the B IA ’s deci s i on. G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e r evi ew cons t i tut i onal ques t i ons and l egal concl us i ons de novo, s ee Ezea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and w e uphol d fac tual det erm i nat i ons i f theyar e s upport ed by “r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G u o v . A sh c ro f

t, 38 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). U lti m a tely , fo r R o d rig u e z -T e v e z to su c c e e d o n h is p e tit io n f o r re v iew , this C o u rt “ m u st f in d th a t th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s upport s thatconcl us i on [thatthe appl i cat i on s houl d have be en gr ant ed] , butcompel s i t . ” IN S v . E li as-Z ac arias, 50 2 U . S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 n . 1 (19 9 2 ).

T o obt ai n as y l um , an i ndi vi dual m us tdemonstr at e thathe i s a “r efuge e”4

w i thi n the meani ng of the I N A . T o do s o r equi r es a s how i ng thathe i s unw i l l i ng or unabl e t o r eturn t o hi s hom e countrybecaus e of “ . . . per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . H er e, R odr i guez- T evez cl ai m ed mem ber s hi p i n a part i cul ar so c ial g ro u p tar g e ted f

o r p e rse c u tio n in E l S a lv a d o r: “ y o u n g E l S a lv a d o ra n m a le s tu d e n ts w ho have r efus ed t o j oi n gangs . ” The B I A hel d thatR odr i guez- T evez ’ s pr opos ed s oci al g ro u p d id n o t co n stitu te a p a rticu larso c ial g ro u p u n d e r IN A § 2 0 8 (b )(1 )(B )(I) b e c a u se it l acke d the r equi s i t e s oci al vi s i bi l i tyw i thi n E l Sal vador an s oci etyand bec aus e R odr i guezT e v e z p o ss e ss e d n o c h a ra c ter istic th a t w o u ld c a u se th e E l S a lv a d o ra n so c iety , o r g a n g s in p a rt i c u l a r , t o r e c o g n i z e h i m a s a me mbe ro f th e p r o p o s e d s o c i a l g r o u p . I n M a t t e ro f S- EG - , 24 I . & N . D ec. 579, 588 ( B I A 2008) , the B I A hel d thata pr opos ed gr oup of “y oung E l Sal vador ans w ho have be en s ubj ectt o r ecrui tm enteff ort s bycr i m i nal gangs , butw ho hav e refused t o joi n fo r per sonal, rel i gious, or m oral reas on s, ” did not quali fyas a part i cul ars oci al gr oup” foras y l um purpos es becaus e the gr oup l acke d a s har ed char act er i s t i c w i th the s oci al vi s i bi l i tyr equi r ed underi t s pr ece dent . T he B I A not ed that gang- r el at ed vi ol ence w as w i des pr ead i n E l Sal vador , and thati taff ect ed eve rys egment of the popul at i on. I d.

Rod r i g u e z - Te v e z a r g u e s th a tth e BI A err o n e o u s l yr e l i e d o n M a t t e ro f S- EG - i n concl udi ng thathe fa i l ed t o s how per s ecut i on bas ed on hi s m ember s hi p i n a p a rticu larso c ial g ro u p . H e a rg u e s th a t M a tter o f S -E -G - is d istin g u ish a b le b e c a u se h is5

gr oup of m al e El Sal vador an s tudent s , i n part i cul ar , i s l es s di ffus e than the pr opos ed g rou p in M att er o f S -E -G -.

W e nee d notdeci de w hetherthe B oar d err ed i n rul i ng thatR odr i guezT evez ’ s pr opos ed s oci al gr oup fai l ed t o qual i fyas a “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup” underthe I N A , how ever , becaus e the B I A bas ed i t s deni al of as y l um on tw o othergr ounds , ei ther one of w hi ch i s s uffi ci ental one t o s upportthe B I A ’ s deni al of as y l um r el i ef. Fi r s t , the B oar d det erm i ned thatR odr i guez- T evez fai l ed t o s how thatthe harm he s uffe r ed fr om g a n g me mbe r s was c o n n e c t e d t o h i s me mbe r s h i p i n th e s o c i a l g r o u p o f y o u n g El Sal vador an mal e s tudent s w ho r efus e t o j oi n gangs , not i ng the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatgang m ember s t ar get ed R odr i guez- T evez pr i m ar i l ybecaus e theyw er e j eal ous of hi m , not“on acc ountof” a s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ound. Second, the B I A rul ed that , as s um i ng R odr i guez- T evez es t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof a s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ound, the G overnm ents ucce s s ful l yr ebutt ed the pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f earof f u tu r e h a rm byd e mon s tr a t i n g th a tRod r i g u e z - Te v e z c o u l d s a f e l yr e l o c a t e wi th i n El S a lv a d o r. A l though R odr i guez- T evez chal l enged the B oar d’ s deci s i on bas ed on the l ack of m ember s hi p i n a cogni zabl e s oci al gr oup underthe I N A i n hi s openi ng br i ef, he d id n o t ra ise a n yiss u e w ith re sp e c t to th e B o a rd ’s d e c isio n th a t h e f a iled to d e m o n stra te thathi s al l eged pa s tper s ecut i on bygangs w as “on ac countof” hi s m ember s hi p i n the g ro u p o f y o u n g E l S a lv a d o ra n m a le s tu d e n ts w h o re f u se to jo in g a n g s. In m a k in g th isT he G overnm ental s o ar gues thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe 2 B IA ’s de cisi o n o n reloc ati o n b ec au se th e issu e w as n o t exh au sted in the B IA . (G o v ’tB r. at16. ) A pet i t i onerhas exhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i f he r ai s es al l i s s ues befor e the B I A . A l though the exhaus t i on pr i nci pl e i s notappl i ed “i n a dr aconi an f a sh io n ,” “ [ o ]u t o f

re sp e c t f

o r th e a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e ss , w e w ill n o t re q u ire th e B IA to gues s w hi ch i s s ues have be en pr es ent ed and w hi ch have not . ” Li n v. A t t orneyG en. , 543 F . 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 2 0 -21 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). E v en if a p eti ti o n er d o es n o t prese n t a claim , this C o u rt m a ystill h a v e ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r it, if th e B IA su a sp o n te a d d re ss e d th e iss u e o n its m er i t s . I d. at122- 23. H er e, the B I A s ua s pont e cons i der ed the r el ocat i on i s s ue eve n th o u g h R o d rig u e z -T e v e z d id n o t ra ise it, a n d th u s, w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew it.

In ste a d , R o d rig u e z -T e v e z d e v o ted th e m a jo rityo f h is re p lyb rie f

to 3 di s cus s i ng the r el ocat i on i s s ue i n the cont extof a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, a cl ai m thathe has w ai ved, as w e not ed pr evi ous l yi n thi s O pi ni on. 6 rul i ng, the B I A focus ed on R odr i guez- T evez ’ s fai l ur e t o es t abl i s h the r equi s i t e nexus b e tw e e n th e h a rm h e s u f f e re d a n d h is m e m b e rs h ip in th e p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p . R odr i guez- T evez does notdi s put e thi s rul i ng i n hi s openi ng br i ef, and thus , he has w ai ved anychal l enge t o the B oar d’ s deci s i on on the mat t er . See Labor er s ’ I nt ’ l U ni on v. F o ster W h ee ler C o rp., 2 6 F . 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 9 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).

T he G overnm entcont ends thatR odr i guez- T evez al s o w ai ved anychal l enge h e m a yh a v e to th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n re lo c a tio n b e c a u se h e f a iled to a d d re ss it i n h is openi ng br i ef. R odr i guez- T evez count er s thathe di d r ai s e the i s s ue i n hi s openi ng br i ef, 2 buthe ci t es no part i cul arpartof the br i ef w her e s uch ar gum ent s ar e l ocat ed and w e ca n fi nd no comm entorcont ent i on r egar di ng the B oar d’ s r el ocat i on deci s i on anyw her e i n the o p e n in g b rie f. T h u s, a n yc laim o f e rro r w ith re sp e c t to th e B IA ’s r e lo c a tio n d e c isio n is 3 notpr oper l ybefor e thi s C ourt . R odr i guez- T evez ’ s fai l ur e t o cont es tthe B I A ’ s rul i ngs on7

r el ocat i on and on hi s fai l ur e t o demonstr at e thathi s pas tper s ecut i on w as on acc ountof his m em bershi p in the p roposed soci al group renders the B oard’s decis i on on these m att er s fi nal . L abor er s ’ I nt ’ l U ni on, 26 F. 3d at398.

N ext , R odr i guez- T evez ar gues thatthe I J and the B oar d deni ed C A T r el i ef bas ed on the w r ong l egal s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng “ac qui es cenc e” on the partof the governm ent . H e cl ai m s thatthe I J ( and the B oar d) err oneous l yr el i ed on the def i ni t i on of “ac qui es cenc e” a dopt ed i n M att erof S- V - , 22 I . & N . D ec. 1306, 1312 ( B I A 2000) ( hol di ng that“ac qui es cenc e” r equi r ed pr oof thatthe governm entw i l l ful l yacc ept ed the t or tur ous act i vi tyorcons ent ed t o i t ) . W e have hel d thatthe B oar d’ s defi ni t i on i n M att er of S- V - i s “the w r ong l egal s t andar d t o appl y . ” Si l va- R engi fo v. A t t orneyG en. , 473 F. 3d 58, 70 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . R odr i guez- T evez cont ends thata r emand i s nece s s aryforthe B o a rd ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f h is C A T c la im u n d e r t h e c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a rd . W e d is a g re e . T o th e e x te n t th a t th e IJ e rr e d in a p p lyin g th e w ro n g le g a l s ta n d a rd f o r “ a c q u ie s c e n c e ,” th e B o a rd c o rre c ted it b yc iti n g th e p ro p e r le g a l sta n d a rd , 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(1 ), in its opi ni on. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.