Court Opinion

ID: 9379739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 15:00:25.249609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.108441
License: Public Domain

20-19
     Acevedo Ayala v. Garland
                                                                                         BIA
                                                                                 Montante, IJ
                                                                                 A206 487 735

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                       SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.

 1         At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
 3   City of New York, on the 16th day of March, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6              REENA RAGGI,
 7              RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
 8              WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
 9                    Circuit Judges.
10   _________________________________________
11
12   JONATHAN JAVIER ACEVEDO AYALA,
13   AKA JONATHAN ACEVEDO,
14                   Petitioner,
15
16                   v.                                              No. 20-19
17                                                                   NAC
18   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES
19   ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20                    Respondent.
21   _________________________________________
 1   FOR PETITIONER:                                       Mary Slattery, Karen L. Murtagh,
 2                                                         Executive Director, Prisoners’ Legal
 3                                                         Services of New York, Albany, NY.
 4
 5   FOR RESPONDENT:                                       Jeffrey B. Clark, Acting Assistant
 6                                                         Attorney General, Civil Division;
 7                                                         Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director;
 8                                                         Judith R. O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney,
 9                                                         Office of Immigration Litigation,
10                                                         United States Department of Justice,
11                                                         Washington, DC.
12
13             UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

14   Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

15   DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

16             Petitioner Jonathan Javier Acevedo Ayala (“Acevedo”), a native and citizen

17   of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an

18   Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying relief under the Convention Against Torture

19   (“CAT”). 1 In re Jonathan Javier Acevedo Ayala, No. A206 487 735 (B.I.A. Dec. 10,

20   2019), aff’g No. A206 487 735 (Immig. Ct. Batavia July 9, 2019). We assume the

21   parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

22             We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions for the sake of

23   completeness. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.

     1   Acevedo does not challenge the agency’s denial of his application for withholding of removal.

                                                      2
 1   2006). We review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence, and we

 2   review questions of law de novo. Manning v. Barr, 954 F.3d 477, 484 (2d Cir. 2020);

 3   see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are

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

 5   the contrary.”).

 6         Acevedo argues that the BIA improperly reviewed the evidence de novo in

 7   determining that he had failed to establish the frequency with which former or

 8   suspected gang members are tortured and killed in El Salvador. But nothing in

 9   the record suggests that the BIA usurped the role of the IJ as factfinder. To the

10   contrary, the BIA found “no clear error” in the IJ’s determination that “incidents

11   of torture and killing of former or suspected gang members [in El Salvador] are

12   isolated” and not more likely than not to occur, even though the evidence

13   demonstrated that “gang-related violence” and “violent clashes between

14   Salvadoran security forces and [active] gang members” are prevalent. Certified

15   Admin. Record at 3–4; cf. Wallace v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[A]

16   review of the factual record by the BIA does not convert its discretionary

17   determination as to whether a petitioner warrants an adjustment of status into

18   improper factfinding.”).

                                              3
 1         Nor did the BIA engage in impermissible factfinding by considering the

 2   State Department’s 2017 Human Rights Report.            In its decision, the BIA

 3   reasonably concluded that the IJ’s citation to just three of the country condition

 4   reports and articles in the record did not suggest that the IJ had overlooked the

 5   remaining evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 471 F.3d 315, 336 n.17

 6   (2d Cir. 2006) (noting the general “presum[ption] that an IJ has taken into account

 7   all of the evidence before him”). In any event, the BIA’s consideration of the 2017

 8   report was not for factfinding purposes, but rather to reject Acevedo’s contention

 9   that the IJ had failed to review relevant evidence.

10         There is also no merit to Acevedo’s argument that the agency ignored and

11   mischaracterized evidence in determining that he had failed to establish that he

12   would be tortured in El Salvador.           A CAT applicant has the burden of

13   establishing that he would “more likely than not” be tortured by or with the

14   acquiescence of government officials. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). To

15   show that torture is “more likely than not,” an applicant “must establish that there

16   is greater than a fifty percent chance . . . that he will be tortured.” Mu-Xing Wang

17   v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 144 n.20 (2d Cir. 2003).

                                                4
 1         We find no error in the agency’s determination that the evidence established

 2   that gang violence and violence between active gangs and police is prevalent in El

 3   Salvador, but that the torture and killing of former or suspected gang members,

 4   such as Acevedo, is isolated.      Acevedo does not point to evidence that

 5   compellingly suggests that the agency ignored or mischaracterized evidence in

 6   making that determination. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157–58 (2d

7    Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen a petitioner bears the burden of proof, his failure to adduce

8    evidence can itself constitute the ‘substantial evidence’ necessary to support the

9    agency’s challenged decision.”).     Accordingly, the agency did not err in

10   concluding that Acevedo failed to establish that he would more likely than not be

11   tortured. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1); see Mu-Xing Wang, 320 F.3d

12   at 144.

13         For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

14   motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

15                                        FOR THE COURT:
16                                        Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                             5