Court Opinion

ID: 9497358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:49:30.885323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:09.072687
License: Public Domain

MICHAEL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Rutilio Lopez-Soto should be granted asylum in the United States. He is the youngest of three brothers, all of whom have been threatened with death by the Mara 18 street gang in Guatemala. One brother died after being stabbed eighteen times by Mara 18, and the other fled to the United States as a result of the gang’s threats. Rutilio fled Guatemala with his cousin Elmer Lopez Mejia after they, too, were threatened by Mara 18. Elmer did not make it to the United States; he was caught in Mexico and returned to Guatemala, where he was promptly shot and killed by the gang. Elmer’s brother Danny was also shot by Mara 18 just a few months after Elmer was killed. The immigration judge (who was affirmed summarily by the BIA) found all of these facts, but he denied Rutilio asylum after concluding that he was not persecuted “on account of’ his family membership. The IJ also denied asylum for the alternative reason that Rutilio could safely relocate within Gua-*242témala, even though Mara 18 was hounding him as he fled. The majority affirms the IJ’s denial of asylum on the ground that Mara 18 did not persecute Rutilio on account of his family membership. I respectfully dissent because any reasonable fact-finder would have to conclude the opposite.
I.
The following facts, many of which come from Rutilio Lopez-Soto’s testimony and affidavit, are undisputed. Mara 18 began targeting the Lopez-Soto family in 1990, when Rutilio, the asylum applicant, was eight years old. The gang approached Rutilio’s twenty-two-year-old brother Edgar, who had just been discharged from the Guatemalan army. As the immigration judge found, Edgar’s military training made him an attractive candidate for recruitment by the gang. Edgar knew he would endanger himself by resisting the gang, but he was “very religious” and for this reason “would never join a gang.” J.A. 46. When Edgar was attending a party in the town of Rio de Paz on April 15, 1990, two Mara 18 members killed him by stabbing him eighteen times; the killers were reported to the police, who did nothing. After Edgar’s death the gang targeted Rubilio, Rutilio’s twenty-year-old brother, also an army veteran. The gang warned Rubilio that if he did not join, he, too, would be killed. After consulting with his parents, Rubilio decided that it would be safer for his family and for him if he left Guatemala. Rubilio fled to the United States in 1990, the same year Edgar was killed.
Mara 18 targeted Rutilio in early 1999, after he turned sixteen. Rutilio and his cousin Elmer Lopez Mejia were in a park (in their home town of Quesada) when they were approached by a large group of Mara 18 members. The boys were told that if they did not join the gang, they would be killed. Mara 18 has a practice of targeting family members of persons it has killed for refusing to join “because the gang fears that if it does not target [the family members], [they] will seek revenge on Mara 18 by joining a rival gang.” J.A. 70. (Joining a rival gang, however, does not ensure safety. Mara 18 kills rival gang members, too, and if the victim bears the rival gang’s tattoo, Mara 18 “will cut the flesh bearing the tattoo from the victim’s body and leave it in a place where members of that rival gang will find it.” J.A. 76.) In the summer of 1999, Rutilio and Elmer received threatening letters from Mara 18 at their homes. The boys fled in September to Puerto Barrios, a town seven hours away from Quesada, their hometown. In Puerto Barrios they stayed with a friend of Ruti-lio’s father while they prepared to leave Guatemala. During the time (roughly a month) that Rutilio and Elmer were in Puerto Barrios, Rutilio’s family continued to receive threatening letters from Mara 18. The last two letters warned Rutilio that if he did not join the gang, he would be stabbed eighteen times just as his brother Edgar was. Mara 18 pressed Rutilio for an answer, and the last letter instructed him to meet the gang on November 15 in Rio de Paz, the place where Edgar was murdered. The gang added that it knew Rutilio intended to flee the country and warned that any such effort would be futile. This last letter prompted Rutilio’s father to call Rutilio and tell him that he “must flee Guatemala immediately.” J.A. 19. Rutilio, like his father, feared that if he did not “show [his] allegiance to the gang” by meeting it in Rio de Paz, Mara 18 would find him and murder him. J.A. 18-19. After Mara 18 targeted Rutilio, he twice applied for a visa at the United States embassy in Guatemala, but he was denied the document each time.
*243In November 1999 Rutilio and Elmer left Guatemala and traveled north through Mexico, by bus and by hitchhiking, in an effort to reach the United States. Rutilio took only clothing, food, money, and a map. Whenever the boys ran out of money, they would work on a construction job for a day or so, until they made enough to resume their travel. As they journeyed northward, the boys tried to avoid Mexican immigration checkpoints; however, at a bus stop in Oaxaca, immigration officers spotted the boys and released dogs in an effort to catch them. The two started running, but Elmer fell down, was caught, and deported to Guatemala. Within days of his return, Elmer was shot in the head by Mara 18. (,Three months later Elmer’s younger brother, Samuel (Danny) Lopez Mejia, was shot five times by Mara 18. Danny recovered from his wounds and was able to flee Guatemala.) In the meantime, Rutilio managed to evade the Mexican authorities in Oaxaca, and he resumed his journey toward the United States. He arrived at the Texas border on December 22, 1999, with only his map, and he was detained by the INS. Rutilio contacted his family from the INS detention center in January 2000 and learned of Elmer’s death. A short time later he learned about the shooting of his other cousin, Danny. At the hearing in his removal proceeding, Rutilio was asked what would happen if he was returned to Guatemala. He replied, “I would only arrive to receive my death.” J.A. 425.
The immigration judge found Rutilio’s testimony “credible with two exceptions.” J.A. 500. The IJ rejected only Rutilio’s opinions that “the [Maras] feared that [he] would take revenge [on them] because of the killing of his brother, and also that [the Maras] would take revenge [on Rutilio] because they feared he would join a rival gang.” J.A. 500. The IJ explained that Rutilio “is a religious person and against violence,” and therefore “it would be implausible that [the Maras] would impute to him the belief that he would take revenge on them.” J.A. 500-01. The IJ added that if the gang had believed Rutilio might take revenge on it for killing his brother, “he would have been killed earlier.” J.A. 507. The IJ further concluded that Mara 18 did not fear that Rutilio would join a rival gang. According to the IJ, no evidence suggested that Mara 18 believed Rutilio would join a rival gang, and Ruti-lio’s religious beliefs made it unlikely he would join such a gang. Because the IJ reasoned that Mara 18 was not likely to believe either that Rutilio would avenge his brother’s death or that he would join a rival gang, the IJ concluded that Rutilio was not targeted on account of his family. Rather, the IJ determined that Rutilio “was being" recruited because he was 16 years-old and a male in that area, and not because of any family reasons.” J.A. 507. The IJ therefore denied the application for asylum. In the alternative, the IJ denied the application on the ground that Rutilio “could have relocated to other areas of Guatemala.” J.A. 509. Rutilio could relocate, the IJ found, because he “drove seven hours away [from home] to Puerto Barrios, where he worked briefly, stayed there for one month and had no problem with the [Maras].” Id. The majority affirms based on the IJ’s first determination, so it does not reach the alternative ground.
II.
To be eligible for asylum as a refugee, Rutilio Lopez-Soto must show (1) that he has a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of’ his “membership in a particular social group,” in this case, his family and (2) that he cannot reasonably relocate elsewhere in Guatemala. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1), 1101(a)(42) (2003); Cruz-*244Diaz v. U.S. INS, 86 F.3d 330, 331 (4th Cir.1996).
A.
No one disputes that Rutilio has a well-founded fear of persecution; the critical issue is whether his fear is on account of his family membership. As the majority correctly points out, for an asylum applicant to fear persecution “on account of’ his family membership, the persecution need not stem solely from family membership. Rather, the applicant “falls within the statute so long as'the illicit motive [his family membership] was a cause — not necessarily the sole cause' — of the persecution.” Ante at 236 (emphasis in original). See also Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 170 (3d Cir.2003) (explaining that persecutor “may have multiple motivations” as long as.one of those motivations is “one of the enumerated grounds”); Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (holding that persecution “on account of’ does not mean “solely on account of’) (emphasis in original). The burden of establishing the persecutor’s motive is straightforward: the applicant must simply “provide some evidence of [illicit motive], direct or circumstantial.” Ante at 236 (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)) (emphasis in original). At the hearing the applicant must prove his persecutor’s motive by a preponderance of the evidence, the majority holds. Id. Of course, the “testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (2004).
We owe substantial deference to an immigration judge’s factual determinations; we treat them as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). See also Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812 (BIA’s determination that applicant is not eligible for asylum can be reversed only if the evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution”). Nevertheless, when the IJ’s “findings and conclusions are based on inferences or presumptions that are not reasonably grounded in the record,” they are not sustainable on review. Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 249 (3d Cir.2003) (en banc). Further, when an IJ rejects an applicant’s testimony as unworthy of belief, he must provide “specific, cogent reasons” for doing so; and in reviewing the IJ’s credibility determinations, we must “examine the record to see whether substantial evidence supports [the determinations] and [decide for ourselves] whether the reasoning employed by the IJ is fatally flawed.” Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). The IJ’s legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Tarvand v. U.S. INS, 937 F.2d 973, 975 (4th Cir.1991). The IJ’s decision to deny Rutilio asylum cannot be sustained under these standards. First, in concluding that Mara 18 did not persecute Rutilio because of his family membership, the IJ made a series of faulty inferences stemming from his finding that Rutilio’s family is religious. See Del Valle v. INS, 776 F.2d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir.1985) (conclusions reached through unreasonable inferences are not supportable). Second, the IJ failed to apply the principle that persecutors may have multiple motives so long as a statutory motive (here, family membership) played some part in the persecution. When this principle is applied to the evidence, it compels the conclusion that Ruti-lio’s persecution was on account of his family membership.
B.
Mara 18 targets family members of those who resisted recruitment (and were *245killed as a result) because the gang fears that the surviving family members will either seek revenge on Mara 18 directly or join a rival gang. After finding that Ruti-lio was not likely to take either course, the IJ inferred that Mara 18 did not view Rutilio as a threat. Both Rutilio and his brother, Rubilio, testified that their opposition to Mara 18 stemmed from their religious faith. Also, when Rutilio’s father was approached by Edgar’s army friends who offered to avenge Edgar’s death, the father said he did not “want [] to take vengeance,” but would “leave it up to the Good Lord.” J.A. 409. Based on this and other evidence, the IJ found that “[Rutilio] and [his] entire family are practicing Evangelical Christians who are opposed to criminal activity and opposed to organizations that violate the law” and that Rutilio was not likely to avenge his brother’s death or join a rival gang. J.A. 501. This finding led the AL J to infer that “it would be implausible that [the Maras] would” harbor “the belief that [Rutilio] would take revenge on them personally.” J.A. 501. After inferring that the Maras would not view Rutilio as a threat, the IJ then concluded that Rutilio was not persecuted on account of his relationship to his brother.
The IJ’s chain of reasoning is supported by speculation and faulty inference, not by substantial evidence. There is no evidence that the Mara 18 knew that Rutilio was religious or that he was unlikely to seek revenge or join a rival gang. See Del Valle, 776 F.2d at 1413 (conclusions must be based on substantial evidence, not conjecture). As a result, there was no basis for the IJ to suppose that the gang would have treated Rutilio any differently than the family members of others it failed to recruit and then killed. Even had Mara 18 both known of Rutilio’s religious beliefs and believed that he was unlikely to pose a threat, it still does not follow that Rutilio was not persecuted on account of family membership. Indeed, it was consistent with the gang’s regular practice for it to target Rutilio in retaliation for his brother’s refusal to join. Moreover, Rutilio’s opinions on why he and his family members were targeted are superfluous. The IJ was free to reject those opinions, but they cannot be used to defeat Rutilio’s basic claim of persecution. At bottom, Rutilio is only required to provide some evidence that the gang did in fact target him partly because of his family. Rutilio has done this by showing a pattern of Mara 18 retaliation against him and his family members as a result of his brother Edgar’s refusal to join the gang.
The IJ also speculated that if Mara 18 actually “believed [Rutilio] would join a rival gang,” then “he would have been killed earlier.” J.A. 507. This statement has no support in the record and ignores Mara 18’s interest in filling its ranks in addition to eliminating its enemies. Ruti-lio was only eight years old when his older brother was stabbed, and an eight-year-old boy was no threat to the gang. When Rutilio reached his mid teens — old enough to pose a threat — the gang forced him to show his allegiance or face death. In short, the record makes clear that Mara 18 knew that Rutilio was the brother of Edgar, whom the gang murdered, and the gang threatened Rutilio with reminders of his brother’s brutal murder. The inquiry into whether Rutilio was persecuted on account of family membership should begin with these facts.
Moreover, the inquiry must proceed on the premise that family membership need only play a partial role in Mara 18’s motivation. The evidence about Mara 18’s general methods combined with its actions against Rutilio and his family compel the conclusion on review that Mara 18 persecuted Rutilio at least partly “on account of’ family membership. Rutilio’s brother, *246Rubilio, stated in his affidavit that “[because of my family’s continued opposition to Mara 18, gang members have targeted young male members of my family for recruitment. I believe that Mara 18 is particularly attracted to young male members of my family because of our demonstrated resistance to joining.” J.A. 45. Other evidence establishes that “Mara 18 teaches [its targets and young members] that refusing to join and leaving the gang will result in their death or the deaths of their loved ones.” J.A. 70. Indeed, after Edgar, the original target in the Lopez-Soto family, refused to join the gang and was killed, both of his brothers were persecuted. The gang, even nine years later, recalled Edgar’s death and told Rutilio in at least two threatening letters that if he did not join, he would meet the same fate as his murdered brother. Mara 18 focuses its general recruiting on young males “who demonstrate strength and courage,” especially those with military training. J.A. 76. Rutilio, of course, had no military training, which indicates that he was targeted because of his relationship to his brother Edgar. And after Rutilio’s cousin and companion in flight, Elmer, was returned by the Mexican authorities to Guatemala, Mara 18 promptly murdered Elmer and shot Elmer’s brother Danny. The threats against Rutilio, with repeated references to Edgar, and the attacks against other family members, are undisputed. These actions demonstrate that Mara 18 remembers those who refuse to join with it and retaliates against them and their family members. A reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that Mara 18 was motivated at least partly on account of family membership in carrying out this systematic persecution.
C.
The majority dismisses the pattern of persecution against Rutilio and his family as a mere “correlation” of events. Ante at 238. Explaining that “a reference to an event does not demonstrate that what follows is ‘because of that event,” the majority asserts that threats that Rutilio would be killed “like Edgar” are “not necessarily the same as declaring he would be killed ‘because’ Edgar was killed;” in other words, Mara 18’s references to Edgar “could be observation^], not [ ] statements] germane to causation.” Id. Though any reasonable target of the statement, “join us or be killed like your brother Edgar,” would understand it as a threat based on a family connection, the majority treats it as “essentially a normative, anecdotal statement that put [Rutilio] on notice that Mara 18 knew his brother was Edgar, whom they killed nine years earlier.” Id. The majority explains that had Mara 18 told Rutilio, “ ‘because your brother did not join our gang nine years ago, we will kill you,’ ” it would have “compelled] a finding of causation.” Id. Thus, the majority concludes, Rutilio “largely presents evidence of correlation” rather than evidence of causation or motive. I respectfully disagree.
In Elias-Zacarias the Supreme Court acknowledged that an applicant for asylum “cannot be expected to provide direct proof of [causation, that is,] his persecutors’ motives.” 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812. For this reason, “[a]n applicant for asylum need not show conclusively why persecution occurred in the past or is likely to occur in the future ... [but] must produce evidence from which it is reasonable to believe that the harm was motivated, at least in part, by an actual or implied protected ground.” Borja, 175 F.3d at 736 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). See also In re S-P-, 21 I & N Dec. 486, 495, 1996 WL 422990 (1996) (“The task of the alien is to demonstrate the reasonableness of a motivation which is *247related to one of the enumerated grounds.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[i]n some cases, the factual circumstances alone may provide sufficient reason to conclude that acts of persecution were committed on account of ... one of the [ ] protected grounds.” Ernesto Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir.2000) (emphasis added). Rutilio presented factual circumstances sufficient to prove that he was persecuted on account of his family membership. As the IJ found, after Edgar refused to join Mara 18, the gang targeted family members Rubilio, Rutilio, Elmer, and Danny over a span of nine years, sent letters to Rutilio’s home that ordered him to meet the gang at the place where Edgar was murdered, and gave Rutilio the choice of joining the gang or being killed like Edgar.
The majority tries to downplay Mara 18’s threats to Rutilio that emphasized the death of his brother Edgar because those threats did not come until “eight months after the gang’s initial contact with [Ruti-lio] in the park in January 1999.” Ante at 237. According to the majority, “[i]f the gang was motivated even in part by [Ruti-lio’s] familial relationship, the evidence in the record should show” a threat that mentioned Edgar at some earlier point. Ante at 237. This argument overlooks the five-month hiatus between the first threat and the final series of threats; it also overlooks the context of the threats referring to Edgar and the expert evidence about Mara 18’s routine practice. After Mara 18 first threatened Rutilio in early 1999, he managed to avoid the gang for about five months by hiding in his home. Mara 18 renewed its effort to contact Rutilio when it sent a threatening letter to his home in July 1999 and again in August. The very next month, September, the gang sent Rutilio two letters warning that he must join the gang or be stabbed eighteen times just like his brother Edgar. The last letter contained Mara 18’s final ultimatum to Rutilio: meet us on November 15 in Rio de Paz (the place where Edgar was killed) and join our gang, or be killed like your brother. Mara 18 thus telegraphed a motive — that Rutilio was being targeted because of family membership — as soon as it decided to bring matters to a head. This motive is corroborated by the undisputed affidavit of an expert witness who confirms that Mara 18 targets the family members of those it murders for refusing to join the gang. J.A. 70.
In summary, Rutilio offered ample evidence to prove at the hearing that he was persecuted on account of his family membership, and this evidence is sufficiently compelling on review to reverse the IJ’s ultimate finding to the contrary.
III.
The immigration judge also denied asylum to Rutilio on the alternative ground that he could safely relocate within Guatemala. For asylum to be denied on this basis, the evidence must establish that it would be reasonable, under all the circumstances, for the applicant to relocate. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069-71 (9th Cir.2003). Whether internal relocation is reasonable is determined by “considering whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health and social and family ties.” Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir.2004). See also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3). The regulations further provide that there is a- presumption against an applicant’s ability to safely relocate once he demonstrates (as Rutilio has *248here) that he suffered past persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); see Singh, 63 F.3d at 1510-11. There is no need for an applicant to show countrywide persecution; rather, “the only relevant question is whether conditions in the country have so changed that the threat no longer exists upon his return.” Singh, 63 F.3d at 1510 (emphasis in original). See also Chanchavac v. INS, 207 F.3d 584, 592 (9th Cir.2000).
The IJ observed that “the background information does indicate that the [Maras] operate throughout the country of Guatemala, and as I have stated in my findings, the government of Guatemala is unable to control them;” nevertheless, the IJ concluded that Rutilio could safely relocate within Guatemala. J.A. 509. The IJ failed to acknowledge the presumption against safe relocation when there is past persecution, nor did he consider any of the relevant factors for assessing whether relocation would be reasonable. Rather, the IJ’s conclusion that Rutilio could safely relocate was based solely on the finding that Rutilio “drove seven hours away to Puerto Barrios, where he worked briefly, stayed there for one month and had no problem.” J.A. 509.
The proper legal analysis begins with the presumption that Rutilio cannot safely relocate. The fact that he spent a single month (largely in hiding) in a town seven hours away from his home before fleeing Guatemala does not overcome this presumption. Nor do other findings by the IJ rebut the presumption against safe relocation. The IJ did not find changed conditions in Guatemala; to the contrary, he found that Mara 18 operates countrywide and cannot be controlled.
Moreover, the IJ’s finding that Rutilio “had no problem” with the gang the one month he was in Puerto Barrios is not supported by substantial evidence. During that brief time the gang continued to send letters to his home, threatening that he would be killed if he did not meet the Maras in Rio de Paz and warning that he would be killed if he tried to flee the country. Other evidence establishes that a young man who rejects membership in Mara 18 will be “relentlessly pursued ... as long as he remains in Guatemala.” J.A. 62. The IJ’s determination that Rutilio could relocate is thoroughly flawed: it fails to take into account the required factors; it fails to give Rutilio the benefit of the presumption against safe relocation; and the essential factual finding supporting the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. I would therefore vacate the IJ’s determination that it would be reasonable for Rutilio to relocate within Guatemala. Relocation is not a lifesaving option.
IV.
Mara 18 gang members have threatened Rutilio Lopez^-Soto with death, persecuted two of his older brothers and two of his cousins, and told him that he will meet the same fate as his murdered older brother if he does not join their ranks. There is extensive evidence concerning Mara 18’s persecution of the Lopez-Soto family and the gang’s nationwide activities in Guatemala. This compels the conclusion on review that Rutilio was persecuted at least partly on account of his family and that he cannot safely relocate within Guatemala. I would therefore grant the petition for review, vacate the IJ’s decision, and remand the case.