Opinion ID: 614073
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The BIA Considered Both Experts' Testimony

Text: The majority finds the BIA erred because the BIA stated only that the testimony of one of Cole's experts `was unpersuasive in light of the other evidence, including the State Department report,... because [he] failed to give specific examples to corroborate his opinion.' The majority claims that the BIA failed to address Cole's other expert at all. Maj. Op. at 772-73. The majority professes not to know which expert the BIA was referring to, but concludes that whichever expert it was, the BIA was obligated to state the reasons `why the testimony was insufficient to establish the probability of torture necessary to grant CAT relief.' Id. (quoting Aguilar-Ramos, 594 F.3d at 706 n. 7). This is not a fair reading of the record. The BIA stated that [t]he Immigration Judge properly concluded that the expert witness's claim that the respondent will be tortured was unpersuasive in light of the other evidence, including the State Department report, contained in the record because the respondent's expert failed to give specific examples to corroborate his opinion.... Only two experts testified Rodriguez, who primarily testified about the racial dynamics of Los Angeles gangs spreading to Central America, rather than about Cole being tortured in Honduras, and Canales, who testified extensively about the various ways that Cole might be tortured. In context, it is clear that the BIA was specifically referring to Canales's testimony. [4] Furthermore, we do not review the BIA's decision in a vacuum, but rather look to the IJ's decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA's conclusion. Delgado, 563 F.3d at 866 (quoting Avetova-Elisseva, 213 F.3d at 1197). The BIA's decision generally affirmed the IJ's decision and the IJ explicitly discussed both Canales's and Rodriguez's testimony, before concluding that neither the witnesses [n]or the documentary evidence presented in the case establishes that a majority of deported gang members are in fact arrested by the police, held in custody, and tortured or killed. It is clear that the IJ considered both of Cole's experts' testimony, but found other evidence more compelling, and it is equally clear that the BIA considered the IJ's decision and affirmed on the same basis. The majority asserts that the BIA's rationale for rejecting one expert's opinion is entirely unsupported by the record for two reasons: (1) the State Department report corroborates rather than contradicts many aspects of both experts' testimony; and (2) the experts did testify about specific incidents of police torturing or killing suspected gang members. Maj. Op. at 773. The majority cites examples from the report and from Canales's testimony in support of these contentions. Id. at 772-73. The majority, however, overlooks the documentary evidence and testimony supporting the opposite conclusion. [5] The BIA stated: the evidence does not establish that, as a black, tattooed, ex-gang member, it is more likely than not that the police would become aware of the respondent's return to Honduras, that upon becoming aware of him, it is more likely than not that the police would detain him, and that it is more likely than not that, once the respondent was detained, they would use physical force against the respondent that would rise to the level of torture. Id. The IJ found that [n]either the witnesses[n]or the documentary evidence presented in this case establishes that a majority of deported gang members are in fact arrested by the police, held in custody, and tortured or killed. The IJ noted that, [h]ere, the Department of State report for Honduras reflects that torture is against the law, and observed that: The report reflects that the public ministry has filed charges against police officers for torture and illegal detention and that an office of internal affairs has been created. There is a special prosecutor for human rights and charges against the police have been found to have merit. Members of the government, including the chief of police of Lasaba and the police commissioner have been prosecuted and sentenced for the Porvener Jail massacre and authorities prosecuted 268 police officers for offenses ranging from abuse of authority to drug trafficking, rape, and homicide. Furthermore, the evidence reflects that Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere and therefore, a lack of resources remains a problem. A review of the 2008 Country Report (the most current at the time of Cole's hearing) supports the IJ's and BIA's conclusions. That report noted that the Honduran constitution and law prohibit torture. In addition, arbitrary arrest and detention are prohibited by the Honduran constitution and other laws. Regarding arrests, the State Department Human Rights report states that: The law states that police may arrest a person only with a court order, unless the arrest is by order of a prosecutor, made during the commission of a crime, made when there is strong suspicion that a person has committed a crime and may try to evade criminal prosecution, or made when the person is caught with evidence related to a crime. Police must clearly inform the person of the grounds for the arrest. Police must bring a detainee before a competent authority within 24 hours. The prosecutor has 24 hours to decide if there is probable cause for an indictment, and a judge then has 24 hours to decide whether to issue a temporary detention order that can last up to six days, by which time the judge must hold a pretrial hearing to examine probable cause and make a decision on whether pretrial detention should continue. Further, while the reports document instances of abuses committed by police and prison authorities, they also document the government's efforts to investigate prison officials who allegedly abused their authority, and note that twenty-one members of the government, including a chief of police and a police commissioner, had been convicted for their part in a jail massacre in 2003. The State Department's Human Rights report noted that [t]he Office of Internal Affairs investigates allegations of illegal activities committed by members of the police force. The Preventive Police and the DGIC each have an office of professional responsibility that conducts internal reviews of police. Other evidence also supports the conclusion that the Honduran government investigates and prosecutes police officers accused of wrongdoing. And Honduras has sought assistance in training its law enforcement and military: Foreign donors and international organizations provided human rights training to police and military officials. There was also evidence that the government actively investigated and prosecuted gang members. The 2007 Congressional Research Service report documented the government's efforts to crack down on gang members and noted that Honduras had received assistance in its efforts from several U.S. agencies. In sum, it appears that the BIA's rationale for rejecting Cole's evidence is supported by the record. When presented with a record containing conflicting evidence, we are restrained to determine only whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812; Halim, 590 F.3d at 975.