Opinion ID: 625002
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immigration court proceedings

Text: The United States Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Escamilla by issuing him a Notice to Appear in March 2007. 5 Escamilla admitted deportability for entering the United States illegally, without inspection, admission, or parole, and an immigration judge (IJ) found him removable. Seeking to avoid deportation to El Salvador, Escamilla applied for asylum, withholding of removal,2 and protection under the CAT.3 In his application for asylum and withholding of removal, Escamilla claimed membership in four particular social groups: 1) Salvadoran men believed to be gang members of a rival gang; 2) Salvadoran men with prior gang associations who have resisted gang membership and bettered their lives; 3) Salvadoran men who are family members of well-known, high-ranking gang members; and 4) Salvadoran men who are HIV positive. He also claimed refugee status based on past persecution and a well founded fear of future persecution due to his political opinion. Finally, Escamilla sought to avoid deportation by seeking protection under the CAT, which does not require membership in a particular social group. 2 Congress changed the INA to refer to “restriction on removal,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2011), but corresponding regulations retain the “withholding of removal” language. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b) (2011). For consistency, we continue to use “withholding of removal.” See Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2006). 3 Formally, the CAT is the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Congress implemented the CAT under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (1998). The CAT is administered through regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 208.16–18 (2011). 6 The IJ relied on BIA precedent in Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579 (BIA 2008), and Matter of E-A-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 591 (BIA 2008), to determine that the first three social groups identified by Escamilla lacked sufficient particularity and social visibility to serve as particular social groups for asylum or withholding of removal purposes. The IJ concluded that the fourth social group identified by Escamilla, Salvadoran men who are HIV positive, can constitute a particular social group for immigration purposes. But, the IJ went on to conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that Escamilla would be harmed due to his membership in this group if he were forced to return to El Salvador, thereby foreclosing the possibility of asylum for Escamilla based on his membership in any of the social groups he listed. The IJ also concluded that it was not more likely than not that he would be harmed due to his membership in the group of HIV positive males if he were forced to return to El Salvador. As a result, Escamilla was ineligible for withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group. The IJ also rejected Escamilla’s application for asylum or withholding of removal based on persecution due to Escamilla’s political opinion. The IJ relied on Matter of S-E- G- and Matter of E-A-G- (both citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992)) for the proposition that gangs generally target individuals for recruitment to fill their ranks, and not based on the individual’s belief or opinion, even if that opinion is in opposition to the gang. The IJ concluded that, because Escamilla was not targeted for his beliefs, Escamilla could not claim asylum or withholding of removal based on his anti- 7 gang views. Finally, the IJ rejected Escamilla’s reliance on CAT to avoid deportation, finding that Escamilla’s evidence did not show the Salvadoran government had the specific intent to inflict torture. Escamilla timely appealed the decision to the BIA.