Opinion ID: 2974716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appeals and BIA Decision

Text: On appeal, Grijalva argued that (1) the IJ erred in his adverse credibility determination and the denial of his application for asylum and relief under the CAT; and (2) he was denied due process as a result of inadequate translation at the deportation hearing. The DHS argued that the IJ erred in granting Grijalva’s application for withholding of deportation as he had not established that it was more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution in Guatemala because of his homosexuality. The BIA first addressed Grijalva’s credibility argument. It found that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not clearly erroneous and that the inconsistencies as to when the gang rape occurred, “go to the heart of [Grijalva]’s claim as they relate to whether he had been persecuted on account of his sexual preference.” The BIA thus affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum. The BIA next considered the IJ’s determination that Grijalva was eligible for withholding of deportation and found it to be clearly erroneous. To qualify for such relief, an alien must: 8 show a clear probability of persecution in the country designated for deportation. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16. This means that the alien must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution in the country designated for deportation. If an alien establishes that he suffered past persecution, it is presumed that his life or freedom would be threatened in the future in the country of removal on the basis of the original claim, absent a showing of a fundamental change in circumstances or the ability to relocate internally. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). Joint Appendix (“JA”) at 76 (BIA Order at 3). Reviewing the record, the BIA did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that it was more likely than not that Grijalva would be persecuted if he was deported to Guatemala. Because the IJ had found that Grijalva failed to show past persecution because of his homosexuality, he was not entitled to a presumption that his life would be threatened in the future for that reason. Thus, the BIA examined the evidence the IJ relied upon in granting Grijalva’s withholding of deportation. It observed that the IJ relied “in significant part” upon a July 30, 2003 affidavit by Andrew Reding. The BIA found the Reding affidavit to be insufficient to “show a pattern and practice adopted by the government towards homosexuals.” BIA Order at 4 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the BIA concluded that the IJ had erred in granting Grijalva’s application for withholding of deportation. Finally, the BIA addressed and rejected Grijalva’s due process arguments as meritless. It found that: (1) the interpreter errors were insignificant; (2) Grijalva failed to establish that the IJ’s decision was based on interpreter errors or that he was prejudiced; (3) Grijalva was represented by counsel who did not request a different interpreter; and (4) there was no evidence of bias on the part of the IJ.