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- 3193

___________ F RANCI S CO J AVI ER ARR I ZA- ES COBAR, 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- 677- 083) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

M ay26, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 1, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Fr anci s co J avi erA r r i za- E s cobarpet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . W e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on.A rr i za- E s cobarr ai s es no i s s ue r egar di ng the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r emand, and 1 i ns t ead c hal l enges onl yi t s di s m i s s al of hi s appea l . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew that ru l i n g p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . “ Be c a u s e th e BI A i s s u e d i t s o wn d e c i s i o n , we r evi ew thatdeci s i on, and notthatof the I J . ” Sher i ff v. A t t ’ yG en. , 587 F. 3d 584, 588 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . W e r evi ew the fa ctual fi ndi ngs defe r ent i al l yfors ubs t ant i al evi dence , and m ayr ever s e onl yi f “‘ a r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary , ’ ” but“‘ thatdefe r ence i s expr es s l ycondi t i oned on s uppor ti n the r ecor d[. ] ’ ” T o u re v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 4 3 F .3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). 2 I. A rr i za- E s cobari s a ci t i zen of E l Sal vadorw ho conce des thathe i s pr es enti n the U n ite d S ta te s w ith o u t a d m is s io n o r p a ro le a n d is re m o v a b le o n th a t b a s is . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) . H e s eeks as y l um , s t atut oryw i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) on the gr ounds thatm ember s of a c r i m i nal or gani zat i on cal l ed M ar a Sal vatrucha, orM S- 13, thr eat ened t o ki l l hi m and hi s br other b e c a u s e th e irf

a th e r i s a p o lic e s e rg e a n t w h o in v e s tig a te s g a n g v io le n c e . A rr i za- E s cobart es t i fi ed bef or e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) and off er ed backgr ound evi dence r egar di ng M S- 13. T he I J as s um ed thathi s t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e, butdeni ed r el i ef a nd or der ed hi s r emoval t o E l Sal vador . A rr i za- E s cobarappea l ed t o t he B I A . H e al s o fi l ed a mot i on t o r emand on t he gr ounds thathi s fatherw as convi ct ed of the hom i ci de of ga ng m ember s , a convi ct i on he attr i but es t o a “c orrupt ” j udi ci aryhe bel i eves w il l al so targe t him . B yo rde r i ssu ed Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , the B IA d en ied A rri za -E sco b ar’s mo t i o n t o r e ma n d a n d d i s mi s s e d h i s a p p e a l . Arr i z a - E s c o b a rp e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. 1E s cobarcl ai m s t o bel ong t o a “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup” compr i s i ng fami l ym ember s of 2 pol i ce of fi cer s combat i ng gang vi ol ence i n E l Sal vador , butthe B I A di d notdeci de that is s u e . 3 II. Ar r i z a - Es c o b a r ’ s p r i n c i p a l c h a l l e n g e i s t o th e BI A’ s d e n i a l o f h i s c l a i ms 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. T h o se c laim s re q u ire d h im to sh o w (1 ) a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on ( foras y l um ) ora l i kel i hood of per s ecut i on ( forw i thhol di ng) (2 ) o n a c c o u n t o f

a sta tu to rilyp ro tec ted g ro u n d (3 ) b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r f o rc e s th a t itis 2 u n a b le o r u n w illin g to c o n tr o l. S e e T o u re , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 3 1 6 -1 7 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). A s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on gi ves r i s e t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f ear of futur e per s ecut i on. See i d. at317. A rr i za- E s cobarchal l enges the deni al of thes e cl ai m s on tw o gr ounds . Fi r s t , he a r g u e s th a tth e B I A e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g th a th e h a s n o ts u f f e r e d p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n . We di s agr ee. A r r i za- E s cobart es t i fi ed thattw o m en w ho i dent i fi ed themsel ves as M S- 13 m em bers approach ed h i m and his brot her, t old them theykn ew w ho theirfat her w as, p u sh e d th e m a g a in st a w a ll, p o in ted a g u n a t th e m a n d to ld th e m th e yw e re g o in g to k ill them . (A . R . 1 6 2 -63 . ) B ec au se th ere w ere p eo p le aro u n d , h o w ev er, th e M S -13 m em b ers t ol d them t o l eave and thr eat ened t o ki l l them i f theys aw them agai n. ( A . R . 164. ) T he B IA con cl ud ed thatthis i ncidentdid not r i se t o the l evel of persecut i on becau se i tw as a “o n e-ti m e o cc u rren ce ” a n d A rri za -E sco b ar w as n o t harm ed . (B IA D ec . at 1-2 ; A . R . 2 -3.) W hil e t his i ncidentno do ub tw as traum at i c, w e agree t hat i tw as not s o ex trem e as t o ri se4

to the leve l of

p erse cu ti o n . S ee G o m ez -Z u luag a v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 2 7 F . 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 4 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (“ ‘[ W ]e h a v e lim ited th e typ e s o f th re a ts c o n stitu tin g p e rse c u tio n to o n lya sm a ll cat egoryof ca s es , and onl yw hen the thr eat s ar e s o m enac i ng as t o caus e s i gni fi cantactual su ff ering o r ha rm . ’”) (cit ati o n o m itted). Second, A r r i za- E s cobarchal l enges the B I A ’ s rul i ng thathe di d notes t abl i s h a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f

u ture p erse cu ti o n . W e f ind this ch all en g e p ersu asiv e. T h e B IA ’s enti re anal y si s of t his cl ai m reads: “E ven i f [A rr i za-Esco bar’ s] fam i l ycon st i tutes a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, ther e i s no evi dence thatotherfami l ym ember s ar e bei ng thr eat ened orharm ed. I ndeed, [hi s ] br otherhas been a bl e t o r emai n i n E l Sal vador w ith o u t fu rth er inc iden t. ” (B IA D ec . at 3; A . R . 3 . ) A s A rri za -E sco b ar a rgu es, th e B IA ’s re a s o n s f o r d e n y in g th is c la im a re n o t p ro p e rl yg ro u n d e d in th e re c o rd . I ti s nottrue thatther e i s “no evi dence ” thatotherfami l ym ember s ar e bei ng thr eat ened orharm ed. A r r i za- E s cobar , w hom the I J as s um ed t o be cr edi bl e, t es t i fi ed that h is u n c le w a s th re a ten e d w ith h a rm . W h ile A rriz a -E sc o b a r’s tes tim o n yis n o t en tirely c lea r, h e a p p e a rs to h a v e tes tifie d th a t as sa ilan ts ta rg e ted h is u n c le b ysh o o tin g a t h is hous e butw ounded a w or keri ns t ead be caus e hi s uncl e w as nothom e. ( A . R . 173. ) T he B IA d id n o t a c k n o w le d g e th is e v id e n c e , a n d w e m a yn o t e v a lu a te it in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . S ee IN S v . V en tura, 53 7 U . S . 1 2 , 1 6 , (20 0 2 ). In a d d iti o n , the B IA e rre d in m e c h a n ica llyre ly in g o n th e a p p a re n t lac k o f h a rm to A rriz a -E sc o b a r’s b ro th e r. W e h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t an a lien ’s c laim c a n b e u n d e rc u t if“O f cour s e, i f hi di ng m eans r el ocat i on t o anotherpartof the country , thi s m aybe 3 r el evantt o s how i ng thatpet i t i onercoul d r eas onabl yavoi d per s ecut i on byr el ocat i ng w i thi n the countr y . . . . T he [BIA ] , how ever , neverm ade a nyfi ndi ng on thi s i s s ue. ” T o u re, 44 3 F . 3 d at 31 9 n . 3 (cit ati o n o m itted). W e r ej ectA r r i za- E s cobar ’ s chal l enge t o the deni al of hi s C A T cl ai m . T he B I A con- 4 cl uded thatA r r i za- E s cobarpr es ent ed no evi dence thatthe El Sal vador an governm ent w oul d t or tur e hi m orcons entoracqui es ce t o hi s t or tur e on r eturn. A rr i za- E s cobarar gues thathe pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o s how thatthe El Sal vador an governm entw oul d be “w i l l ful l ybl i nd” t o t or tur e byM S- 13. See G om ez- Z ul uaga, 527 F. 3d at350. A rr i zaE s cobar , how ever , has ci t ed no evi dence of r ecor d thatM S- 13 w i l l t or tur e hi m and no evi dence compel l i ng the conc l us i on thatthe governm entw oul d be w i l l ful l ybl i nd t o any s uch t or tur e. 5 fami l ym ember s r emai n w i thoutharm , but“w e do notagr ee thatthi s pr i nci pl e has any ap p li ca ti o n w h ere , as h ere , a p eti ti o n er testi fies tha t th e sim il arly -si tuated fa m il ym em b ers a re in h id in g .” T o u re , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 3 1 9 . A rriz a -E sc o b a r te stif ied th a t h is b ro th e r is “ in hi di ng forthe s ame fear ” i n E l Sal vador . ( A . R . 180. ) H e al s o t es t i fi ed that“he f eart hey can ki l l hi m buthe’ s i n di ffe r entpl ace s . I n San M i guel and otherpl ace s w her e, he moves ar ound w her e ther e ar e no gang r oot s . ” ( A . R . 181. ) T hus , the B I A s houl d have a ddr es s ed A rr i za- E s cobar ’ s expl anat i on forthe appa r entl ack of harm t o hi s br otheri ns t ead of m e c h a n ica llyre ly in g o n it. 3 A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand forfur ther c o n sid e ra tio n o f

A rriz a -E sc o b a r’s a sy lu m c laim . B e c a u se th e B IA re ste d its d e n ial o f h is w i thhol di ng cl ai m s ol el yon i t s deni al of hi s as y l um cl ai m , w e w i l l r emand forfur ther c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th a t cla im a s w e ll. W e e x p re ss n o o p in io n o n w h e th e r A rriz a -E sc o b a r in fac ts how ed a w el l - founded f earorl i kel i hood of per s ecut i on, oron anyof the i s s ues t hat the B I A di d notr eac h. 4