2008 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 7-18-2008 

# M eji a-Juare z v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4726

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y 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 mor e 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 " M eji a -Juar ez v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 828. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/828NOT 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. 06- 4726

___________ REN E HU GO M EJ I A- J UA REZ, Pet i t i oner

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

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 98 493 813 Im m i grat i on Judg 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)

J ul y16, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y18, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM R ene H ugo M ej i a- J uar ez pe t i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( B IA ), w h ich a ff irm ed an o rde r of

the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (IJ),M ej i a fi l ed, w i thi n t hi r tyday s of the B oar d’ s deci s i on, a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as 1 corpus i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k. T hat C o u rt tr a n s f

e rr e d th e p e titio n h e re in th e in te re s ts o f ju s tic e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 3 1 . W e c o n side r th e h ab ea s p eti ti o n to b e a ti m ely -fil ed p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f th e B o ard ’s deci s i on. H e d id n o t s e e k a s y lu m b e c a u s e th e o n e -ye a r p e ri o d f o r s e e k in g re lie f

h a d e x p ir e d . 2 2 ther ebydeny i ng hi m r el i ef f r om r emoval . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. 1 M ej i a, a ci t i zen of

E l Sal vador , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2001 w i thout i ns pect i on. H e s ubs equent l yconce ded hi s r emovabi l i tyand s oughts t atut oryw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) . M ej i a t es t i fi ed that 2 i n 2 0 0 1 two p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s , wh o we r e b r o th e r s o f a mu r d e rv i c t i m, J o r g e Ro me r o , c a me t o hi s r el at i ve’ s hous e and a ccus ed hi m of the murde r . A . R . 103- 04. T he off i cer s t ook M e j i a o u ti n t o th e y a r d a n d tr i e d t o c o e r c e a c o n f e s s i o n b yb e a t i n g h i m. A. R. 1 0 4 . On cr os s - exami nat i on, M ej i a agr eed thatthe off i cer s w er e ac t i ng “out s i de of the s cope of thei rauthor i ty . ” A . R . 113- 14. T he off i cer s s ubs equent l yt ook M ej i a t o the pol i ce s t at i on, w her e nothi ng fur therhappene d t o M ej i a w hi l e he w as det ai ned for24 hour s . A . R . 105- 0 6 . M e jia p re se n ted a n a f

f id a v it fro m D o m in g a A y a la, w h o w a s a p p a re n tlya w itn e ss to the cr i m e. A . R . 107. A y al a s t at ed thatal though the vi ct i m ’ s br other s kepti ns i s t i ng t hat s h e k n e w M e

jia w a s th e a s s a ila n t, M e jia w a s d e f

in ite ly n o t th e a s s a ila n t. A .R . 3 0 3 -0 4 . A ft erhi s arr es ti n E l Sal vador , M ej i a appe ar ed i n courtand w as gi ven a s econd courtdat e. A . R . 106. M ej i a as s ert s thatats om e poi ntthe cha r ges w er e di s m i s s ed, butA s the I J not ed, M ej i a’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng w hetherthe cha r ges w er e di s m i s s ed or 3 w hetherhe w as s uppos ed t o appea ri n courtagai n w as s om ew hatcontr adi ct ory . A . R . 51. “ M S ” s t a n d s f

o r“ M a r a S a l v a tru c h a ” , a n El S a l v a d o r a n a n d Ame r i c a n g a n g . A. R. 4 122. In h is re m o v a l in ter v iew , M e jia s tate d th a t h e w a s n o t a g a n g m e m b e r a n d th a t h is 5 f ri e n d s , w h o w e re “ g a n g b a n g e rs ” , p u t th e ta tto o o n h im . A .R . 3 0 7 , 3 1 2 . M ej i a’s w i fe i s a nat i ve an d cit i zen o f t he U nit ed S t at es. 6 3 that h e f ea red the b roth ers w o u ld reinstate the ch arg es. A . R . 1 1 5 -17 . T h e v ict im ’s 3 br other s r epea t edl yt ol d M ej i a and hi s r el at i ves thattheyw oul d ki l l hi m and thatthey wou l d t a k e h i m t o j a i l “ s o [ th a th i s ] f a mi l ywou l d n o ts u s p e c t . ” A. R. 1 0 6 . M e j i a l e f tEl Sal vadori n 2001, and i n 2005, I nt erpol i s s ued a w arr antforM ej i a’ s arr es t . A . R . 297- 301. A l though M ej i a s ubm i t t ed t o the I J num er ous art i cl es di s cus s i ng gang- r el at ed vi ol ence i n E l Sal vador , hi s w r i t t en appl i cat i on forr el i ef, A . R . 287- 95, does notr efe r ence a n yf e a r o f h a rm f ro m g a n g s n o r a n yf

e a r th a t h e w ill b e h a rm e d b e c a u se h e is p e rc e iv e d to b e a g a n g me mbe r . At th e h e a r i n g , M e j i a t e s t i f i e d th a th e was g o i n g t o j o i n a g a n g i n El Sal vadoratone poi nt , and thata fr i end s t art ed t att ooi ng “M S” on hi s back, butthathe 4 ul t i m at el ydeci ded nott o j oi n t he gang a nd di d notcompl et e the t att oo. A . R . 107- 09. 5 M ej i a’ s w i fe then t es t i fi ed thati f a ga ng thi nks he i s a form ergang mem berhe w i l l be

6 ki l l ed, and thats he al s o fea r s thatthe vi ct i m ’ s fami l yw i l l ki l l hi m . A . R . 123. I n cl os i ng argum ents , cou nsel assert ed thatM ej i a cou l d b e kil l ed in pri son b ythe v i ct i m ’s brot hers, orbygang mem ber s beca us e of hi s t att oo. A . R . 127- 28. T he I J not ed, and couns el di d not di s put e, thatM ej i a had nott es t i fi ed r egar di ng a fe arof gangs . A . R . 128- 30. I n r es pons e,4

couns el poi nt ed t o M ej i a’ s w i fe’ s t es t i m onyand the gene r al countrycondi t i ons r egar di ng g a n g s in su p p o rt o f

h is a rg u m e n t. A .R . 1 3 0 . B e c a u se M e jia d id n o t in c lu d e su c h a c laim i n hi s appl i cat i on ort es t i m ony , the I J decl i ned t o cons i dera cl ai m of harm bas ed on gang m ember s hi p. A . R . 55. T he I J found M ej i a i nel i gi bl e fors t atut oryw i thhol di ng and w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe C A T beca us e an I nt erpol arr es tw arr antforaggr avat ed murde rpr ovi ded a s e r i o u s r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e M e j i a h a d c o mmi t t e d a s e r i o u s n o n - p o l i t i c a l c r i me i n El S alva d o r. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(B )(i ii ) [IN A § 2 4 1 (b)(3 )(B )(i ii )] ( statu tory w i thhol di ng of r emoval notavai l abl e w her e “ther e ar e s er i ous r eas ons t o bel i eve thatt he al i en comm i t t ed a s er i ous nonpol i t i cal cr i m e out s i de the U ni t ed St at es befor e the al i en arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es ”) ; 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( d) ( s i m i l arpr ovi s i on r egar di ng w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l u n d e r th e C A T ). F u rth e rm o re , the IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t ev e n if e lig ib le , M e

jia h a d n o t s a tis f

ie d h is b u rd e n o f

p ro o f f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. T he I J r ecogni zed thatM ej i a mi ghts t i l l be el i gi bl e fordefe rr al of r emoval undert he C A T , i f he c oul d demonstr at e thati tw as m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be t or tur ed

“ b yo ra tth e i n s t i g a t i o n o f o rwi th th e c o n s e n to ra 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 rs o me otherper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci ty . ” A . R . 49; 8 C . F. R . § 208. 18( a) ( 1) ( defi ni t i on of t or tur e) ; 8 C . F. R . § 208. 17 ( not i ng thatdefe rr al of r emoval i s avai l abl e forcert ai n al i ens i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval ) . H ow ever , the I J found that , as s um i ng M ej i a w as beat en, as he t es t i fi ed, the men w ho beathi m w er e ac t i ng as i ndi vi dual s and noti n anyM e

jia’s b rie f

is d o m in a ted b ya n a rg u m e n t th a t th e IJ im p ro p e rlyf o u n d th a t M e

jia 7 w o u ld e x p e ri e n c e “ p ro s e c u tio n ” ra th e r t h a n “ p e rs e c u tio n ” if re tu rn e d to E l S a lv a d o r. Fi r s t , the I J ’ s deci s i on s ay s nothi ng about“pr os ecut i on. ” Second, the ar gum entthat M e jia h a s o r w o u ld e x p e rie n c e p e rse c u tio n is irre lev a n t to th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r M e

jia sh o u ld b e g ra n ted w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l if, a s th e IJ f

o u n d , M e

jia is s tatu to rilyin e lig ib le fors uch r el i ef. E v e n if h e h a d ra ise d th e iss u e b e f o re th e B o a rd , h is f

a ilu re to ra ise th e iss u e in h is 8 br i ef i n ourC our tal s o cons t i tut es a w ai verof the i s s ue. C hen v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d 221, 2 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 5 offi ci al capa ci ty . A . R . 53. T he I J found no evi dence i n the r ecor d that“the governm entof E l Sal vadororanypubl i c off i ci al i n E l Sal vadorhas anyi nt ent i on w hat s oeverof t or tur i ng hi m beca us e of hi s i nvol vementi n t he murde rof M r . R om er o. ” I d. T he B I A aff i r m ed w ith o u t o p in io n o n S e p te m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 6 . W h e n th e B o a rd su m m a rilya f f irm s, w e re v iew th e IJ’ s d e c isio n . D ia v . A sh c ro f t, 3 5 3 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (e n b a n c ). A s th e IJ n o ted , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(B )(iii) pr ovi des thatan al i en i s i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval i f ther e ar e s er i ous r eas ons forbel i evi ng thatthe al i en has comm i t t ed a s er i ous nonpol i t i cal cr i m e out s i de the U ni t ed St at es pr i ort o t he arr i val of the al i en i n the U ni t ed St at es . T he r ecor d cont ai ns an I nt erpol n o t i c e s h o wi n g th a tEl S a l v a d o rh a d i s s u e d a wa rr a n tf o rM e j i a ’ s a rr e s tf

o rmu r d e r . A. R. 3 0 0 -01 . M eji a d id n o t con testthe a u then ti cityo f th e n o ti ce . N eith er h is brief to th e B IA norhi s br i ef i n t hi s C our tar gues thatthe not i ce i s nota s er i ous r eas on forbel i evi ng thathe comm i t t ed a s er i ous nonpol i t i cal cr i m e. M ej i a’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve 7 r emedi es of thi s as pectof hi s cas e bar s ourr evi ew of thi s cl ai m . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) [IN A § 2 4 2 (d)(1 )]; see also B o n h o m etre v . G o n za les, 4 1 4 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 8M ej i a ar gues i n partthathe w as t ar get ed i n the pas t , and w i l l be t or tur ed i n the 9 futur e, due t o hi s per cei ved gang mem ber s hi p. H e ar gues thatother s s us pecthi m of bei ng a gang mem berdue t o t he l ar ge “18” t att ooed on hi s back. A s i de fr om hi s br i ef t o the B I A , the r ecor d cont ai ns abs ol ut el yno s uppor tforhi s cont ent i on thathe has an “18” on hi s back; i n fac t , the I J exami ned hi s back dur i ng the hea r i ng, and not ed onl ya “f ai nt o u tli n e o f

a n M a n d a f

a in t o u tli n e o f

a n o th e r le tter, w h ich th e C o u rt w a s u n a b le to d isc e rn a s to w h e th e r it w a s a n S o r so m e o th e r le tter.” A .R . 6 3 . W e a lso d isa g re e w ith M ej i a’ s s t at ementthatthe “r ecor d . . . r efl ect s that[the br other s of the dec eas ed] arr es t ed h im b a s e d o n h is ta tto o s o r p e rc e iv e d g a n g m e m b e rs h ip . . . .” P e titio n e r’ s B ri e f a t 2 2 . F u r th e r , t o th e e x t e n th i s c l a i m o f p e r c e i v e d g a n g me mb e r s h i p i mp a c t s h i s d e f e rr a l c l a i m, w e h o ld th a t th e IJ d id n o t er r in f in d in g th a t M e

jia w a iv e d su c h a c laim b yf a ili n g to i ncl ude the cl ai m i n hi s w r i t t en appl i cat i on forr el i ef a nd byfai l i ng t o t es t i fyr egar di ng t he c l a i m. 6 A s M eji a h as n o t con test ed the f ind ing that m ak es h im ineligible f o r st atuto ry w i thhol di ng of r emoval and w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe C A T , the onl yr emai ni ng i s s ue i s w hetherthe I J err ed i n deny i ng defe rr al of r emoval underthe C A T . A s not ed above, the I J deni ed def err al of r emoval beca us e M ej i a di d nots how thatanyharm he had e x p e rie n c e d o r m ig h t ex p e rie n c e in E l S a lv a d o r w a s o r w o u ld b e “ a t th e h a n d s o f a p u b lic offi ci al ors om e otherper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci ty . ” A . R . 52- 53. E vi dence of gener al corrupt i on and vi ol ence i n E l Sal vadori s , i t s el f, i ns uffi ci entt o w arr antr el i ef. See A u g u ste v . R id g e , 3 9 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 , 1 5 4 -5 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A s th e G o v e rn m e n t p o in ts o u t, a lth o u g h h is b rie f

m e n tio n s th e w o rd “ to rtu re ” se v e ra l ti m e s, M e jia “ d o e s n o t m o u n t a 9 di r ectchal l enge t o anyof the gr ounds on w hi ch the i m m i gr at i on j udge r el i ed i n fi ndi ng hi m i nel i gi bl e forC A T pr ot ect i on. ” R es pondent ’ s B r i ef, at26. I ndeed, M ej i a conc eded b e f o r e th e I J th a tth e m e n w h o b e a th i m w e r e n o ta c t i n g i n a n o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty.M eji a’s b ri ef co n tai n s an arg u m en t secti o n ca p ti o n ed “W h ethe r th e P eti ti o n er’s 10 r emoval dur i ng the pende ncyof the pet i t i oner ’ s H abea s cl ai m w as pr operbefor e the D i s tr i ctC our tw as pr oper[s i c] and w hetherthe pet i t i oners houl d be perm i t t ed t o appl yfor adj us t m entof s t atus orcanc el l at i on of r emoval pur s uantt o s ect i on 245 of the I N A . ” O ur j ur i s di ct i on i s l i m i t ed t o t he ques t i ons pr es ent ed bythe pet i t i on forr evi ew of a f i nal or der of r emoval . T he ques t i on of w hetherM ej i a s houl d be al l ow ed t o appl yforadj us t m entof statu s o r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al i s n o t pro p erlyb ef o re u s. 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 ). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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. 10