Opinion ID: 178348
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Persecution by the Human Rights Commission

Text: Ralios Morente argues that he might face prosecution for his role in the Civil Patrol. He maintains that such prosecution would not be for past acts, but would constitute a pretext or show 4 Ralios Morente reported the threat he received from Thomas. A.R. 166; J.A. 130. Ralios Morente believes Thomas was then punished. Id. 09-3830 Ralios Morente v. Holder Page 14 trial to gain political advantage. Respondent asserts that Ralios Morente has failed to establish that the Human Rights Commission would select him for prosecution for invidious reasons. The BIA found that Ralios Morente failed to show that he would be maliciously prosecuted for his role in the Civil Patrol as opposed to legitimately prosecuted. Ralios Morente offers scant evidence to show that the Human Rights Commission will maliciously prosecute him. His evidence consists of his testimony that the Human Rights Commission is looking for him because two Civil Patrol members from other cantons are in jail, and because he was a Chief of the Civil Patrol, along with a vague assertion that the Human Rights Commission is “looking for people.” A.R. 145, 148– 49; J.A. 109, 112–13. Ralios Morente presents no evidence that the Human Rights Commission consciously seeks out innocent former Civil Patrol members to prosecute in show trials. Further, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that suspected human rights violators are not afforded at least a form of due process in proceedings initiated by the Human Rights Commission. Moreover, the BIA correctly distinguished between malicious prosecution, which may equate to persecution, and legitimate prosecution, which does not constitute persecution. See Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145, 1151 (6th Cir. 2010). Therefore, if the Human Rights Commission prosecutes Ralios Morente for any human rights violations it reasonably suspects him to have committed, the prosecution would not amount to persecution. Ralios Morente’s unsupported assertion that he will be prosecuted in a show trial, without more, does not compel reversal of the BIA’s factual determination. In sum, the BIA’s determination that Ralios Morente failed to establish that he is eligible for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. 09-3830 Ralios Morente v. Holder Page 15 C. Nondiscretionary Relief: Withholding of Removal and Protection under the CAT Ralios Morente also sought withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. Respondent argues that Ralios Morente waived his claims for nondiscretionary relief by failing to present any argument about the claims in his opening brief. Indeed, Ralios Morente confirms that he does not “seriously” assert his claims for nondiscretionary relief in the instant proceeding. Pet’rs’ Br. at 1, n.1. We deem Ralios Morente to have waived his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Shkabari v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 324, 327 n.1 (6th Cir. 2005) (claims for nondiscretionary relief waived where petitioner mentioned them only in his statement of issues and failed to present any argument on the claims). In any event, to qualify for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien must demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that he will be persecuted if he returns to his home country. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). Similarly, an alien seeking relief under the CAT must prove that it is more likely than not he will be tortured upon his return. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Since Ralios Morente cannot satisfy the standard for asylum, it follows he cannot meet the more stringent standards that govern his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Ndrecaj, 522 F.3d at 677; Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 354, 361–62 (6th Cir. 2007).