Opinion ID: 799899
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The IJ Decision

Text: The IJ conducted a hearing on March 27, 2008. The IJ heard testimony from Bartolome, his wife, and his friend Nicolas Bartolome. Bartolome alleged that in 1985, during the Guatemalan civil war, Quiche-speaking guerrillas came to his family’s house, attacked him, his wife, and children, and attempted to recruit him to join the guerrillas. The guerrillas are members of the Hispanic ethnic group, that spoke many of Guatemala’s indigenous languages, and attempted to usurp the country’s government. Bartolome refused to join the guerrillas stating that he “did not want to take sides in the conflict between the guerrillas and the government.” According to Bartolome, the guerrillas made death threats and also threatened to separate him from his family. As a result of these threats, Bartolome stated that he joined the civil patrol to protect himself and his village. He estimated that approximately 50 men participated in the civil patrol. Bartolome testified that the army also tried to recruit him but he also declined because he wanted to stay neutral in the conflict. Bartolome stated that he only recalled one direct incident with the guerrillas but he claimed that they continued to harass his village. Bartolome further stated that he never saw any other violent attacks by the guerrillas but did hear about the guerillas killing at least one villager and another villager was allegedly tortured and hanged by the guerrillas. Bartolome testified that he fled the country in 1989 and came to the United States because he wanted to protect himself from the guerrillas. His family remained in Guatemala until 1997. Bartolome returned to Guatemala in 1998 to attend his father’s funeral and he remained in the country for two months. He stated that he did not encounter any problems with the guerrillas 3 No. 10-4590 because they no longer existed, but he claimed that the guerrillas remained a threat because they continued to assault and harass the indigenous population. In their applications for asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioners also submitted country reports and newspaper articles that discussed the country’s conditions with respect to its indigenous population. After the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ issued an oral decision and order denying Petitioners’ applications. First, the IJ found both Bartolome’s and his wife’s persecution claims not credible. The IJ stated that he was unable to determine “who was injured and what the extent of the injury might have been.” The IJ also noted that Bartolome provided inconsistent responses during his interview with the Asylum Officer, on his asylum application, and during the IJ hearing. These responses ranged from Bartolome never experiencing mistreatment while in Guatemala to his testimony that the guerrillas physically attacked him and his family. The IJ stated that even if Petitioners were found credible, Petitioners failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. Second, the IJ found that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof that they suffered past persecution in Guatemala. In particular, the IJ commented that Bartolome’s single incident with the guerrillas did not constitute persecution as no blood was drawn and Bartolome did not seek medical attention. Third, the IJ found that Petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution should they return to Guatemala. The IJ concluded that “there is no reliable evidence in the record that the guerrillas, in the one time they encountered respondent in 1985 to attempt to recruit him, did so on account of one of the five protected grounds.” Moreover, the IJ noted that the four-year lapse 4 No. 10-4590 between the time that the guerrillas allegedly attacked Petitioners in 1985 and the time that Bartolome left Guatemala for the United States in 1989 demonstrated a lack of immediacy in any perceived threat of persecution. Furthermore, Bartolome’s two-month return to Guatemala in 1998, in which he was unharmed and not bothered by the guerrillas, substantially weakened his wellfounded fear of persecution claim. The IJ also found no evidence to support Bartolome’s claim that the Guatemalan government attempted to recruit him into the army for any reason other than defending the country. The IJ further found unconvincing Petitioners’ claim that they are members in a particular social group. The IJ stated that Petitioners’ social group—the Quiche ethnicity—“lacks the requisite social visability ” because the record provides no evidence that this particular social group exists. Moreover, the IJ determined that there is no evidence that the guerrillas are currently targeting the Quiche ethnic group because the guerrillas are no longer in existence. The IJ noted that Bartolome testified to this point when he stated that the guerrillas have disbanded. The IJ stated that Petitioners’ background materials did not provide reliable evidence to support their contention that the guerrillas were or remain a threat to the Quiche ethnic group. Based on these reasons, the IJ concluded that Petitioners did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. The IJ, however, granted Petitioners’ post-hearing voluntary departure request.