Opinion ID: 2974716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Show Cause Hearing and IJ Decision

Text: On several dates in 1997 and 1998 and in 2003, proceedings were held on the Immigration Court’s order to show cause why Grijalva, who was 47 years old in 2003, should not be deported to Guatemala. The IJ issued an oral decision and written order on August 13, 2003. Observing that Grijalva’s testimony was crucial, the IJ found that he was not a credible witness and thus denied his claims for asylum and relief under the CAT. The IJ first observed that there were inconsistencies in his 1995 and 1997 asylum applications. The 1995 application, that Grijalva signed and submitted to the INS, did not mention 6 the basis for his 1997 asylum application – that the Guatemalan police failed to protect him from threats and abuse and that he was raped by the Guatemalan military because he is a homosexual. The IJ acknowledged Grijalva’s argument that this inconsistency was caused by a notario who took advantage of him rather than his own fabrication of the truth. Nevertheless, the IJ found inconsistencies attributable to him personally, rather than activities of the notario. For example, Grijalva testified that the gang rape by the Guatemalan soldiers occurred in 1994, but his 1997 asylum application stated that the gang rape occurred in 1990. Grijalva also told Dr. Zender, who diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder, that the gang rape had occurred in 1990. The IJ found this four-year discrepancy to be significant and not sufficiently resolved by evidence of the cultural norm in Guatemala to use life events rather than calendar dates to explain when an event has occurred. The gang rape itself was the sort of life event that would likely be used to mark the passage of time. The IJ was convinced that Grijalva is an effeminate homosexual and observed that homosexuality had been recognized as a “particular social group” under the BIA’s decision in Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I&N Dec. 819, 822-23 (BIA 1990). Because he found that Grijalva lacked credibility, however, the IJ was not convinced that Grijalva had been the subject of a gang rape or past persecution in Guatemala because of his sexual orientation. The IJ also determined that, because of Grijalva’s lack of credibility, his application for asylum did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion. Accordingly, the IJ denied Grijalva’s application for asylum. The IJ also denied Grijalva’s application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Although there was evidence that the Guatemalan government had turned a deliberate blind eye to the mistreatment of homosexuals in the past, the IJ was not convinced that Grijalva would be 7 subjected to government-sponsored torture, as opposed to mere persecution, if he returned to Guatemala. Despite these rulings, the IJ determined that Grijalva had established that it would be more likely than not that he would be persecuted, as opposed to tortured, if he returned to Guatemala and thus granted his application for a withholding of removal. The IJ’s decision relied heavily on declarations in Andrew Reding’s July 30, 2003 affidavit, that Guatemala had become a “killing zone” for effeminate homosexuals. Both Grijalva and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed timely appeals with the BIA.