Opinion ID: 2966321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: N.S., 138 F.3d 14, 18-19 (1st Cir. 1998)).

Text: Unlike the IJ, after finding that Ordonez-Quino had not demonstrated past persecution on account of a protected ground, the 12 The government can also rebut the presumption by showing Ordonez-Quino could avoid persecution by moving to another part of Guatemala and it would be reasonable to expect him to do so. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). -25- BIA proceeded to hold that even if Ordonez-Quino had shown past persecution, changed country conditions would have rebutted his claim to a well-founded fear of future persecution. For support, the BIA cited this court's decision in Palma-Mazariegos v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 2005). That case treated the distinct issue of whether a Guatemalan petitioner had a reasonable fear of future harm based on his refusal to join the guerrilla forces. Id. at 33. The court there noted that evidence showed the guerrillas had been integrated into the government after the civil war and no longer engaged in militant activities. Id. at 35-36. As a result, the court found that the record supported the BIA's finding of changed conditions sufficient to rebut that petitioner's asserted fear of future harm. Id. at 37. Ordonez-Quino, on the other hand, says he has a wellfounded fear of future persecution based on his Mayan Quiché race and ethnicity. He provides significant documentation of ongoing systemic racism and human rights violations against the Mayan Quiché community. See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of State, 2009 Human Rights Reports: Guatemala §§ 5-6 (2010) (noting, inter alia, threats to and murders of indigenous leaders; pervasive discrimination against indigenous community; and land dispute where police evicted roughly 80 indigenous community members from their homes, burned their homes, and destroyed their crops); Guatemalan Human Rights Comm'n, Guatemala Human Rights Review, January- -26- September 2007 7 (2007) (describing violent evictions of indigenous families from native lands at hands of police officers and military personnel). The BIA's quick dismissal of Ordonez-Quino's fear-offuture-persecution claim with a conclusory statement and an inapposite case citation, without any reference to the voluminous record, is not a finding supported by substantial evidence. See Gailius v. I.N.S., 147 F.3d 34, 46 (1st Cir. 1998) (In order for this court to conduct a proper substantial evidence review of the BIA's decision, the [BIA's] opinion must state with sufficient particularity and clarity the reasons for denial of asylum. (internal quotation marks omitted)). The BIA appears not to have made any attempt to assay the evidence of current conditions in Guatemala for Ordonez-Quino specifically, and thereby failed to undertake the type of particularized analysis that our standards demand. See Hernandez-Barrera, 373 F.3d at 25. Accordingly, if the agency now finds that Ordonez-Quino has in fact demonstrated past persecution, it will need to determine whether the government has rebutted Ordonez-Quino's corollary presumption of a well-founded fear considering the evidence put forth in this record and his individual situation. 3. Humanitarian Asylum Furthermore, if the agency finds both that Ordonez-Quino has established past persecution and that the government has -27- rebutted his fear of future persecution, Ordonez-Quino may nevertheless be able to obtain discretionary asylum relief based on past persecution alone under the humanitarian exception. See Guerrero v. Holder, 667 F.3d 74, 79 n.5 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)). This exception permits a decisionmaker to grant an asylum applicant's request for relief in the absence of [a] well-founded fear of future persecution if: (A) The applicant has demonstrated compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to the country arising out of the severity of the past persecution; or (B) The applicant has established that there is a reasonable possibility that he or she may suffer other serious harm upon removal to that country. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A)-(B); see also Matter of Chen, 20