Court Opinion

ID: 9927901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 16:00:53.953871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:29:13.543256
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936        Date Filed: 01/30/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          January 30, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  RENE ROBERTO GONZALEZ-
  DOMINGUEZ,

        Petitioner,

  v.                                                           No. 23-9518
                                                           (Petition for Review)
  MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States
  Attorney General,

        Respondent.
                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before EID, CARSON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Rene Roberto Gonzalez-Dominguez is a native and citizen of El Salvador who

 entered the United States without permission. An immigration judge (IJ) found him

 removable and ineligible for withholding of removal or protection under the

 Convention Against Torture (CAT), and ordered that he be returned to his home

 country. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal in a

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-9518     Document: 010110991936      Date Filed: 01/30/2024   Page: 2

 single-member summary order. Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez now petitions for review

 of the BIA’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny

 the petition.

 I.     STANDARD OF REVIEW

        We review the BIA’s decision, but we may consult the IJ’s more-complete

 discussion of the same grounds relied upon by the BIA. Uanreroro v. Gonzales,

 443 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s “legal determinations

 de novo, and its findings of fact under a substantial-evidence standard.” Niang v.

 Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005). “[A]dministrative findings of fact

 are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to

 the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

 II.    BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez entered the United States in April 2005. In May

 2011, the government served him with a notice to appear (NTA), charging him with

 removability as a noncitizen present in the United States without being admitted or

 paroled. At a hearing before an IJ in August 2012, he conceded proper service of the

 NTA and removability as charged. He then applied for withholding of removal and

 CAT protection,1 claiming he would likely be killed by Salvadoran gangs upon return

 to his country because he used to belong to the Salvadoran national police force.

        1
            He has not pursued an asylum claim.
                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936            Date Filed: 01/30/2024   Page: 3

       A.     Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez’s Hearing Testimony

       At a hearing in support of withholding and CAT protection, Mr. Gonzalez-

 Dominguez testified he became a Salvadoran national police officer in 1995. In

 August 2004, three Mara 18 gang members told him he needed to leave the police

 force or there might be attempts on the life of his wife and son. He reported that

 threat to his superiors and was told “to be careful and keep an eye on the people that

 were around [him].” R. at 174. His superiors did not begin an investigation,

 however, because, according to Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez, “in my country there

 aren’t the resources in order to be able to do that.” Id.

       Continuing his testimony, Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez said five or six armed

 gang members came to his home the following month and asked why he had not left

 the police force, again threatening his wife and son. He again reported the incident to

 his superiors, but “[t]his time they just didn’t say anything,” and they didn’t

 investigate because, “like I said before, they can’t—they can’t do anything, can’t do

 much, nothing.” R. at 176.

       Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez then testified that two or three gang members came

 to his house a month later (October 2004) and repeated their threat that he needed to

 quit the police force. In December 2004, he received a similar threat while he was

 with his son at a nearby park. He received five more threats in January and February

 2005. Finally, in March 2005, two people whom Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez believed

 to be leaders of the Mara 18 gang came to his house and more forcefully threatened

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936         Date Filed: 01/30/2024      Page: 4

 the lives of his wife and son if he did not leave the police force. This threat struck

 him as more serious, and that is when he fled El Salvador for the United States.

       Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez has not since been threatened. In either 2008 or

 2009, a Salvadoran police chief texted him a copy of a letter confirming his official

 termination from the national police force.

       B.     The IJ’s Decision

       The IJ’s decision began by addressing a procedural issue sua sponte.

 Specifically, the IJ noted that, “[i]n retrospect, the [NTA] was defective” because it

 did not include “the date and time of the first hearing.” R. at 99; cf. Pereira v.

 Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2109–10 (2018) (holding that an NTA without time or

 place information fails to trigger the “stop-time rule,” meaning the noncitizen

 continues to accrue continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of

 removal). The IJ relied on agency precedent, however, holding that such an NTA can

 be cured by later service of a hearing notice containing the date and time. Because

 Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez received such a notice, and because he conceded proper

 service of the NTA, the IJ found that removal proceedings had been proper.

       As to the substantive claims at issue, the IJ found that Mr. Gonzalez-

 Dominguez failed to show:

             the threats he received in 2004 and 2005 amounted to persecution; and

             a likelihood of persecution upon return to El Salvador, because his

              evidence did not show that gang members target former police officers.

 The IJ therefore denied withholding of removal.

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936       Date Filed: 01/30/2024       Page: 5

        As for CAT protection, the IJ held that Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez failed to

 show the Salvadoran government would acquiesce in torture committed by gang

 members, should he return to El Salvador. The IJ therefore denied CAT protection

 and ordered Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez returned to his home country.

        C.    The BIA’s Decision

        On appeal to the BIA, Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez argued that the NTA defect

 deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction, so the IJ should have dismissed his

 removal proceedings. He also challenged the IJ’s denial of his withholding and CAT

 claims.

        The BIA summarily affirmed, adopting the IJ’s reasoning on all contested

 issues. This petition for review timely followed.

 III.   ANALYSIS

        A.    The Agency’s Jurisdiction

        Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez renews his argument that his defective NTA

 failed to confer jurisdiction on the agency to order his removal. This court held

 after Pereira, however, “that the requirements relating to notices to appear are

 non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rules.” Martinez-Perez v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1273,

 1278 (10th Cir. 2020). “We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent

 en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.”

 In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993).

        Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez does not specifically argue that the Supreme Court

 has since handed down a superseding contrary decision, but he frequently cites

                                            5
Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936       Date Filed: 01/30/2024       Page: 6

 Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). Niz-Chavez was “the next chapter in

 the [Pereira] story.” Id. at 1479. It examined whether the government could avoid

 the stop-time problem highlighted in Pereira by later serving a document containing

 the time and place of the hearing. See id. Its answer was “no.” See id. at 1486.

       By relying on Niz-Chavez, Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez may mean to say that,

 just as a defective NTA plus a later curative document does not trigger the stop-time

 rule, a defective NTA plus a later curative document does not confer jurisdiction on

 the immigration courts. If this is his argument, we disagree. Nothing in Pereira or

 Niz-Chavez suggests the agency’s jurisdiction—its “power or authority to hear and

 decide,” Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W. I. S., Inc., 306 U.S. 563, 568 (1939)—turns on

 the technical perfection of the original NTA. Thus, we follow our holding in

 Martinez-Perez, 947 F.3d at 1278, that the date and time requirements are not

 jurisdictional, and we conclude the agency retained jurisdiction to order

 Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez’s removal.

       B.     Claim-Processing Objection to the Defective NTA

       Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez argues, at a minimum, the technical NTA

 requirements are at least claim-processing rules, and the agency should have

 dismissed the proceeding because the government failed to follow those rules.

 We agree they are claim-processing rules, as we held in Martinez-Perez. But

 the government objects that Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez did not raise this argument

 before the agency. We likewise cannot find any place in the record where

 Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez raised the claim-processing issue. Rather, he argued to the

                                            6
Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936        Date Filed: 01/30/2024       Page: 7

 BIA (although not to the IJ) that the defective NTA stripped the agency of

 jurisdiction.2

        This court “may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has

 exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C.

 § 1252(d)(1). Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez did not exhaust his claim-processing

 argument before the agency. And, to be clear, exhausting a jurisdictional argument is

 not the same as exhausting a claim-processing argument. For example, in contrast to

 jurisdictional rules, claim-processing rules “must be timely raised to come into play.”

 Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1846, 1849 (2019). Thus, Mr. Gonzalez-

 Dominguez did not give the agency an opportunity to adjudicate at least one

 important question, specifically, the timeliness of his claim-processing objection in

 his circumstances (i.e., he was served with the NTA in 2011, conceded proper service

 in 2012, and never raised any objection to the NTA, jurisdictional or otherwise, until

 his BIA brief, which he filed in August 2020). See Schreiber v. Cuccinelli, 981 F.3d

 766, 787 (10th Cir. 2020) (discussing “the fundamental principle of administrative

 law that instructs courts not to usurp the agency’s function by setting aside the

 administrative determination upon a ground not theretofore presented and depriving

 the agency of an opportunity to consider the matter, make its ruling, and state the

 reasons for its action” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)); Vicente-Elias

        2
         He also argued that the defective NTA violated his due process rights, but he
 has not reasserted that argument here.
                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936        Date Filed: 01/30/2024    Page: 8

 v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1086, 1094 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[O]bjections to procedural errors

 or defects that the BIA could have remedied must be exhausted . . . .”).

       For these reasons, we are precluded from reaching his claim-processing

 argument.

       C.     Withholding of Removal

       “[T]he Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney

 General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country

 because of,” among other things, “membership in a particular social group.”

 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). A withholding applicant has the burden of proving a

 threat to life or freedom in the country of removal, either by proving past threats (in

 which case the burden shifts to the government to show no current likelihood of

 threats, or an ability to avoid them through relocation), or by proving a likelihood of

 future threats. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)–(2).

       Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez claimed he would be threatened because he is a

 member of a particular social group comprising former Salvadoran national police

 officers. So defined, he could not carry his burden with the threats he received in

 2004 and 2005 because the gangs were threatening him based on his status as a

 current police officer.3 Instead, his case necessarily turned on proving a likelihood

 of future threats based on his previous police service. The IJ found Mr. Gonzalez-

       3
         The IJ nonetheless ruled the threats did not qualify as the kind that could
 support withholding of removal. Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez’s petition for review
 does not challenge this finding.
                                            8
Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936        Date Filed: 01/30/2024   Page: 9

 Dominguez had not carried this burden because his evidence almost entirely showed

 that Salvadoran gangs target current police officers, not former ones.

       Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez claims this was error, but we see no basis to

 overturn the agency’s conclusion.4 Rather, the IJ was correct that almost all of the

 evidence points to threats against, and murders of, current police officers.

 Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez says he “submitted significant country conditions evidence

 that speaks to the gangs’ targeting of current and former police officers,” and he

 follows that assertion with a string cite to numerous documents in the record. Pet’r

 Opening Br. at 37–38. We have reviewed each of the cited documents and not one of

 them discusses threats against former police officers. His characterization to the

 contrary is simply incorrect.

       We have found only four items of evidence supporting Mr. Gonzalez-

 Dominguez’s claim:

             At the withholding/CAT hearing, Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez was asked,

              “So, 13 years have passed since you left El Salvador. Why would these

              people continue to be a threat to you?” R. at 182. He answered,

              “[B]ecause I think[,] because what they wanted to do was kill me and

              my family and I never said okay, I’ll quit the police.” Id.

       4
         The government argues Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez waived this issue because
 his opening brief fails to specifically and adequately challenge the agency’s finding.
 The government is mistaken. Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez devoted four pages to this
 argument. See Pet’r Opening Br. at 36–39.
                                            9
Appellate Case: 23-9518     Document: 010110991936         Date Filed: 01/30/2024    Page: 10

              A Salvadoran attorney who knew Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez when he

               was a police officer submitted an affidavit. The attorney stated

               (according to the official translation), “[R]eturning to [E]l Salvador

               would be of great risk to him and his family since the [gang activity]

               has rise[n] and for the conditions for which he had to leave the country

               it is a major risk for him to return to the country.” R. at 285.

              A second Salvadoran attorney who knew Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez

               submitted an affidavit. He asserted, “[R]eturning to [E]l Salvador

               would be of great risk to [Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez] and his family.”

               R. at 301.

              A Salvadoran police officer who worked with Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez

               submitted an affidavit. He stated, “[I]f [Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez]

               were to return to the country it would put him and his family in great

               denager [sic].” R. at 294.

        “Under the substantial-evidence standard our duty is to guarantee that factual

  determinations are supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence

  considering the record as a whole.” Niang, 422 F.3d at 1196 (internal quotation

  marks omitted). The agency had substantial evidence to conclude that, despite these

  assertions, the record did not support Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez’s claim that his

  former-officer status puts him at risk if he returns to his country. As the IJ pointed

  out: (i) Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez took the step the gangs wanted him to take,

  namely, he left the police force; (ii) thirteen years had passed (as of the IJ’s decision)
                                              10
Appellate Case: 23-9518     Document: 010110991936         Date Filed: 01/30/2024     Page: 11

  since his last threat; and (iii) his documentary evidence about threats to police

  officers relates to current officers, not former ones. See R. at 108–10. We therefore

  cannot say the evidence “compel[s]” any “reasonable adjudicator . . . to conclude”

  that Salvadoran gangs target former police officers. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In

  consequence, we will not disturb the agency’s denial of withholding of removal.

        D.     CAT Protection

        Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez’s CAT claim is based on the same premise as his

  withholding claim. Thus, his failure to show a likelihood of being targeted as a

  former police officer would seem to doom his CAT claim also. But the agency never

  said as much, and we “may not uphold an agency action on grounds not relied on by

  the agency,” Mickeviciute v. INS, 327 F.3d 1159, 1163 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal

  quotation marks omitted). We therefore focus on the reasoning actually given.

        The parties’ CAT dispute centers around the concept of government

  acquiescence to torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (requiring the torture in

  question to be “inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or

  acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting

  in an official capacity”). Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez argued before the agency, and

  continues to argue here, that his supervisors’ failure to take action after he reported

  the gang’s threats, combined with the reason they failed to act (lack of resources), is

  enough to show willful blindness (which is a form of acquiescence, see Karki v.

  Holder, 715 F.3d 792, 806 (10th Cir. 2013)). The IJ interpreted the evidence to show

                                              11
Appellate Case: 23-9518    Document: 010110991936        Date Filed: 01/30/2024    Page: 12

  that Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez’s superiors told him they could do nothing due to lack

  of resources, but the IJ found this was not enough to establish willful blindness.5

        Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez asks us to overturn that finding, but our limited

  standard of review does not permit us to do so. As the BIA recognized, the

  Salvadoran government’s general inability to control the gangs is not the same as a

  likelihood of acquiescing to torture of Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez, should he return.

  See R. at 4 (“We do not disturb the Immigration Judge’s determination that police

  were frustrated by a lack of resources to fully combat El Salvador’s gang problem,

  but would not acquiesce to any future torture.” (citation omitted)). From our

  perspective, we cannot say Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez’s evidence about the

  government’s lack of resources to investigate gang threats compels a conclusion that

  the Salvadoran government would acquiesce to whatever the gangs might do to him

  upon his return. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We accordingly reject his CAT

  argument.

        5
          The IJ appears to have misremembered Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez’s
  testimony about his reports to his superiors. Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez did not say
  his superiors told him they could do nothing due to lack of resources. He said his
  superiors told him to be careful, and they otherwise did nothing. He then offered his
  own opinion that his country lacks the resources to investigate gang threats. The IJ,
  however, described the testimony as follows: “[W]hen he reported the first threat he
  received he was told by his commanding officers that they were unable to do
  anything in response to such a threat based on resource issues.” R. at 129.
  Mr. Gonzalez-Dominguez and the government have both accepted this
  characterization of the testimony in their subsequent briefing. Thus, because no one
  challenges it, we treat it as a settled factual finding.

                                            12
Appellate Case: 23-9518   Document: 010110991936       Date Filed: 01/30/2024   Page: 13

  IV.   CONCLUSION

        We deny the petition for review.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Veronica S. Rossman
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           13