Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/33

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1215

MANUEL ORDONEZ- QUI NO,

Pet i t i oner ,

v.

ERI C H. HOLDER, J R. , UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent .

PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF AN ORDEROF THE BOARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEALS

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Howar d, and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Nancy J . Kel l y, J ohn Wi l l shi r e Car r er a, and Har var dI mmi gr at i on & Ref ugee Cl i ni c, on br i ef f or Pet i t i oner .

Dar a S. Smi t h, Tr i al At t or ney, Of f i ce of I mmi gr at i onLi t i gat i on, St uar t F. Del er y, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Ci vi lDi vi si on, and Davi d V. Ber nal , Assi st ant Di r ect or , Of f i ce ofI mmi gr at i on Li t i gat i on, on br i ef f or Respondent .

J ul y 23, 2014


2/33

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Pet i t i oner Manuel Or donez- Qui no

seeks r evi ew of a Boar d of I mmi gr at i on Appeal s' ( "BI A" ) deci si on

af f i r mi ng an I mmi gr at i on J udge' s ( "I J ") deni al of hi s r equest s f or

asyl um, wi t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on under t he Uni t ed

Nat i ons Convent i on Agai nst Tor t ur e. Among other t hi ngs, he says

t he BI A' s and I J ' s det er mi nat i ons t hat he di d not demonst r at e past

persecut i on on account of a pr ot ect ed gr ound were not suppor t ed by

subst ant i al evi dence. Because we agr ee, we gr ant hi s pet i t i on and

r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.

I. Facts

We t ake t he f act s pr i mar i l y f r om Or donez- Qui no' s

af f i davi t and t est i mony bef or e t he I J , who f ound hi m credi bl e,

suppl ement i ng wi t h some hi st or y f or cont ext . See Ayal a v. Hol der ,

683 F. 3d 15, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

Or donez- Qui no was bor n i n Zacual pa, Depar t ment of Qui ch,

Guat emal a, on December 4, 1974. He i s an i ndi genous Mayan Qui ch.

Hi s nat i ve l anguage i s Qui ch; he speaks ver y l i t t l e Spani sh.

Or donez- Qui no gr ew up dur i ng t he most vi ol ent per i od of

t he br ut al ci vi l war t hat r avaged Guatemal a f r om1962 t hr ough 1996.

I n hi s af f i davi t and t est i mony, he r el at ed haunt i ng chi l dhood

memor i es of t he Guat emal an mi l i t ary' s at t acks on hi s f ami l y and

t hei r communi t y. He sai d t he Guat emal an gover nment si ngl ed t hem

out f or per secut i on because of t hei r i ndi genous r ace and et hni ci t y,

t hei r r eal and i mput ed pol i t i cal opi ni ons, and t hei r member shi p i n

-2-


3/33

var i ous soci al gr oups. Dur i ng t he at t acks, he sai d, t he mi l i t ar y

"shot at us, bombed us, dest r oyed our homes[ , ] and ki l l ed our

peopl e. I wi t nesse[ d] many t er r i bl e t hi ngs. "

I n 1980, dur i ng one such at t ack, a mi l i t ar y hel i copt er

dropped a bomb next t o Or donez- Qui no and hi s f at her . Or donez- Qui no

was onl y f i ve or si x year s ol d. Hi s f at her was t r yi ng t o car r y hi m

t o saf et y i n t he sur r oundi ng mount ai ns when t he nearby expl osi on

knocked Or donez- Qui no t o t he gr ound. Hi s f ather scooped hi m back

up and r an i nto hi di ng, but t he damage was done. Ei t her as a

r esul t of t he expl osi on or t he f al l , Or donez- Qui no suf f er ed a

sever e i l l ness, exper i enci ng hi gh f ever s and ext r eme headaches f or

days. Because sol di er s cont r ol l ed t he ar ea, hi s par ent s coul d not

seek medi cal at t ent i on and i nst ead appl i ed t r adi t i onal r emedi es.

Due t o hi s i nj ur i es, Or donez- Qui no ul t i mat el y became al most

compl et el y deaf i n bot h ear s.

From t hat t i me f or war d, Or donez- Qui no' s hear i ng l oss

af f ect ed hi m deepl y. Because he coul d not hear , he l ost hi s

abi l i t y t o speak cl ear l y. I t was di f f i cul t f or hi mt o communi cat e

and devel op r el at i onshi ps. He st r uggl ed t o l ear n at t he same pace

as hi s peer s. He was more vul nerabl e t o vi ol ence because he coul d

not hear t he onset of mi l i t ar y r ai ds.

I n t he year s t hat f ol l owed, sol di er s cont i nued t o

vi ct i mi ze Or donez- Qui no' s communi t y. At some poi nt , hi s f ami l y' s

home and l ands were dest r oyed. To sur vi ve, t hey went t o work at a

-3-


4/33

f arm on t he coast of Guat emal a. They al l "worked ver y hard and

l i ved ver y hard l i ves, " but Or donez- Qui no suf f er ed more because he

coul d not under st and Spani sh or hear what hi s super vi sors yel l ed at

hi m. He says he " l i ve[ d] i n const ant anxi et y and f ear . "

Some t i me l at er , Or donez- Qui no went t o work i n t he

t ext i l e mi l l s i n Guat emal a Ci t y, wher e he was of t en mi st r eat ed

because he coul d not hear or under st and Spani sh. Dur i ng t hi s

per i od, hi s par ent s hel ped hi mar r ange a marr i age t o a Qui ch woman

f r om hi s homet own. They l ater had a daught er t oget her .

Whi l e he was i n Guat emal a Ci t y, Or donez- Qui no repor t s

t hat he was repeatedl y target ed by raci st gangs because of hi s

Qui ch et hni ci t y. Agai n, hi s i nabi l i t y t o hear or t o under st and

Spani sh put hi m i n gr eater danger because he coul d not hear t he

gangs' t hr eat s or det ect t hei r appr oach.

Or donez- Qui no l ef t Guat emal a Ci t y af t er a vi ol ent gang

at t ack i n 2005, when gang members " st ar t ed beat i ng [ hi m] as i f t hey

wer e goi ng t o ki l l [ hi m] . " Whi l e f l eei ng t he gang, he r an i nt o a

barbed wi r e f ence, causi ng permanent scar s t o hi s head and ar m.

Fear i ng t hat he mi ght not be abl e t o escape i f he wer e

at t acked agai n, Or donez- Qui no r et ur ned br i ef l y t o hi s homet own

where he hi d i n hi s f ami l y' s home. He came t o t he Uni t ed St at es

soon af t er because hi s f ami l y war ned hi mi t was not saf e t o st ay i n

Guat emal a. Today, hi s f ami l y t el l s hi m not t o r et ur n t o Guat emal a

due t o ongoi ng vi ol ence agai nst t he Mayan Qui ch communi t y.

-4-


5/33

II. Administrative Proceedings

Or donez- Qui no ent ered t he Uni t ed St at es t hr ough Mexi co

wi t hout i nspect i on i n J ul y 2005. He made hi s way t o Provi dence,

Rhode I sl and t o l i ve wi t h f ami l y members, and he f ound work at t he

Mi chael Bi anco f actory i n New Bedf ord, Massachuset t s.

On Mar ch 6, 2007, U. S. I mmi grat i on and Cust oms

Enf orcement r ai ded t he f actory and det ai ned Or donez- Qui no, al ong

wi t h over 300 ot her worker s. The next day, t he gover nment i ssued

a Not i ce t o Appear , chargi ng Or donez- Qui no wi t h r emovabi l i t y under

8 U. S. C. 1182( a) ( 6) ( A) ( i ) as an al i en who had ent er ed t he Uni t ed

St at es wi t hout i nspect i on or par ol e. 1

On Oct ober 4, 2010, Or donez- Qui no appeared bef ore an I J

i n Bost on, Massachuset t s, seeki ng ( 1) asyl um pur suant t o 8 U. S. C.

1158; ( 2) wi t hhol di ng of r emoval pur suant t o 8 U. S. C.

1231( b) ( 3) ; and (3) pr ot ect i on under t he Convent i on Agai nst

Tor t ure pur suant t o 8 C. F. R. 1208. 16- 18. Or donez- Qui no had

gr eat di f f i cul t y t est i f yi ng because he coul d not hear hi s

1 Or donez- Qui no was t aken f i r st t o For t Devens, Massachuset t s,and t hen t r ansf er r ed t o a det ent i on f aci l i t y i n El Paso, Texas. OnMarch 22, 2007, he appeared bef ore an I J i n El Paso wi t houtcounsel , wi t hout a Qui ch t r ansl at or , and wi t hout hear i ng

assi st ance. The I J or der ed hi m r emoved i n shor t order . Or donez-Qui no subsequent l y obt ai ned counsel and appeal ed t he I J ' s deci si on,ar gui ng he had not r ecei ved a f ul l and f ai r hear i ng, i n vi ol at i onof hi s due pr ocess r i ght s. Bot h Or donez- Qui no and t he Depar t mentof Homel and Secur i t y moved t o remand hi s case t o the I J , and t heBI A acqui esced. He l ater appl i ed f or and was gr ant ed a change ofvenue t o Bost on, Massachuset t s.

-5-


6/33

at t or ney' s or t he I J ' s quest i ons wel l , despi t e t he assi st ance of a

hear i ng ai d. 2

I n addi t i on t o hi s t est i mony and per sonal af f i davi t ,

Or donez- Qui no submi t t ed t he f ol l owi ng mat er i al s t o t he I J : t he

t est i mony and af f i davi t of a doct or ver i f yi ng Or donez- Qui no' s

hear i ng i mpai r ment and not i ng hi s i mpr ovement wi t h a hear i ng ai d;

t he r epor t of Guat emal a' s Commi ssi on f or Hi st or i cal Cl ar i f i cat i on

( "Hi st or i cal Cl ar i f i cat i on Repor t " or t he "Repor t ") , whi ch, i nt er

al i a, f ound t hat t he Guat emal an mi l i t ar y commi t t ed act s of genoci de

agai nst i ndi genous Guat emal ans i n sever al r egi ons i ncl udi ng

Or donez- Qui no' s homet own of Zacual pa dur i ng t he Guat emal an Ci vi l

War ; 3 deci si ons by t he U. S. Cour t s of Appeal s f or t he Second and

Ni nt h Ci r cui t s addr essi ng asyl um cl ai ms br ought by i ndi genous

2 Or donez- Qui no obt ai ned one hear i ng ai d i n t he Uni t ed St atespr i or t o appear i ng bef or e t he I J . He coul d not af f or d a secondone, but he says he hopes t o get anot her i f he i s per mi t t ed t o st ayi n t he Uni t ed St at es.

3Comm' n of Hi stori cal Cl ari f i cat i on, Guatemal a Memory of Si l ence: Reportof the Commi ssi on f or Hi stori cal Cl ari f i cat i on, Concl usi ons and

Recommendati ons, Concl usi ons, 38-41 (1999), avai l abl e athttp: / /www. aaas. org/ si tes/defaul t/ f i l es/mi grate/upl oads/mos_en. pdf ("Hi stori calCl ari f i cat i on Report" or the "Report") . The Commi ssi on was establ i shed throughthe J une 1994 Osl o Accord "t o cl ari f y wi th obj ecti vi ty, equi ty[ , ] andi mpart i al i ty, the human ri ghts vi ol at i ons and acts of vi ol ence connected wi ththe armed conf rontati on that caused suf f eri ng among the Guatemal an peopl e, "duri ng the ci vi l war. I d. at Prol ogue, 11.

-6-


7/33

Guat emal ans; 4 sever al document s descr i bi ng ongoi ng di scr i mi nat i on

agai nst Mayans i n Guatemal a; numer ous r eport s and ar t i cl es i ssued

by t he U. S. Stat e Depar t ment and pr omi nent human r i ght s

or gani zat i ons det ai l i ng t he hi st or y of vi ol ence and r ecent human

r i ght s vi ol at i ons agai nst Mayans i n Guat emal a; and sever al

document s about gang vi ol ence i n Guat emal a.

Af t er t he hear i ng, t he I J deni ed Or donez- Qui no' s r equest s

f or r el i ef and or der ed hi m r emoved. Though t he I J f ound

Or donez- Qui no' s t est i mony cr edi bl e and excused hi s f ai l ur e t o seek

4 Those cases were: Per ez Cal mo v. Mukasey, 267 F. App' x 640

( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ( unpubl i shed) ( r emandi ng I J ' s deni al of asyl umbecause ( 1) pet i t i oner ' s f ai l ur e to show per secut i on was di r ect edspeci f i cal l y at her di d not necessar i l y pr ecl ude f i ndi ng of pastper secut i on, and ( 2) subst ant i al evi dence di d not suppor t I J ' sf i ndi ng of no nexus bet ween sol di er s' i nvasi on of pet i t i oner ' svi l l age and a pr ot ect ed gr ound) ; Her nandez- Or t i z v. Gonzal es, 496F. 3d 1042 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( r emandi ng I J ' s deni al of asyl um andwi t hhol di ng of r emoval because ( 1) I J ' s adver se cr edi bi l i t yf i ndi ngs wer e not suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence, and ( 2) I Jf ai l ed t o consi der har m pet i t i oner s and f ami l y suf f er ed f r omper spect i ve of smal l chi l dr en) ; J or ge- Tzoc v. Gonzal es, 435 F. 3d146 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( per cur i am) ( r emandi ng I J ' s deni al of asyl um

because I J f ai l ed ( 1) t o t ake ent i r e r ecor d i nt o account and ( 2) t oconsi der har mpet i t i oner suf f er ed cumul at i vel y and f r omper spect i veof smal l chi l d) ; and Vel asquez v. Ashcr of t , 81 F. App' x 673 ( 9t hCi r . 2003) ( unpubl i shed) ( r emandi ng I J ' s deni al of asyl um andwi t hhol di ng of r emoval because I J f ai l ed t o consi der whet hervi ol ence was commi t t ed agai nst pet i t i oner by actors t he gover nmentwas unwi l l i ng or unabl e t o cont r ol ) .

-7-


8/33

asyl um bef or e t he one- year f i l i ng deadl i ne, 5 t he I J concl uded t hat

Or donez- Qui no di d not qual i f y f or asyl um because he had not

demonst r ated past per secut i on or a wel l - f ounded f ear of f ut ur e

per secut i on on account of a pr otect ed gr ound.

As f or past per secut i on, t he I J f ound t hat t he Guat emal an

mi l i t ary at t acked Or donez- Qui no' s communi t y dur i ng t he war because

t hey t hought t her e wer e guer r i l l as wi t hi n or near by, not because

t he communi t y was Mayan Qui ch. Whi l e t he I J acknowl edged t hat

r aci sm may have i nf or med t he mi l i t ar y' s bel i ef s about t he

communi t y, he sai d r aci sm i t sel f was not t he r eason f or bombi ng i n

or near t he vi l l ages, and " [ t ] he pur pose of t he bombi ng was not t o

dest r oy t he Mayan Qui ch[ ] communi t y. " The I J f ur t her f ound no

evi dence t hat Or donez- Qui no was l at er accost ed by gangs because of

hi s Mayan Qui ch i dent i t y. Accor di ngl y, t he I J hel d t hat Or donez-

Qui no had not est abl i shed t he r equi r ed nexus bet ween t he past harm

he suf f ered and a pr ot ect ed ground.

As f or f ear of f ut ur e per secut i on, whi l e t he I J

acknowl edged t hat t he Mayan Qui ch popul at i on cont i nues t o suf f er

per vasi ve di scr i mi nat i on i n Guat emal a, he f ound t hat t hei r pr esent

mi st r eat ment does not r i se t o t he l evel of per secut i on. Mor eover ,

5 The I J excused Or donez- Qui no' s f ai l ur e t o appl y f or asyl umbef ore the one- year mark because Or donez- Qui no' s " hear i ng l oss wi t ht he r esul t ant i nabi l i t y to communi cat e, as wel l as t he possi bi l i t yof some neur ol ogi cal damage r esul t i ng f r om hi s i nabi l i t y t o hearand t o l ear n . . . const i t ut e[ d] except i onal ci r cumst ances r el at i ngt o t he del ay i n hi s havi ng f i l ed hi s appl i cat i on f or asyl um. " Thegover nment has not chal l enged t hi s deci si on.

-8-


9/33

t hough Or donez- Qui no mi ght f ear f ur t her vi ol ence, t he I J sai d he

had not shown he woul d be t argeted by gangs or ot hers i n the f ut ur e

on account of a pr ot ect ed gr ound. I n f act , f ami l y members who

shar e hi s pr ot ect ed t r ai t s ar e l i vi ng i n Guat emal a saf el y.

Accor di ngl y, t he I J hel d t hat Or donez- Qui no was not

el i gi bl e f or asyl um. He l i kewi se f ound t hat Or donez- Qui no was not

el i gi bl e f or r el i ef under t he mor e st r i ngent "cl ear pr obabi l i t y of

per secut i on" st andar d f or wi t hhol di ng of r emoval , or f or pr ot ect i on

under t he Convent i on Agai nst Tor t ur e.

Or donez- Qui no appeal ed t he I J ' s deci si on t o t he BI A. He

chal l enged t he I J ' s f i ndi ng of no nexus bet ween t he past har m he

suf f er ed and a pr ot ect ed gr ound, and he argued he was el i gi bl e f or

asyl um based both on past per secut i on and a wel l - f ounded f ear of

f ut ur e per secut i on. He al so expr essl y r equest ed a di scr et i onar y

gr ant of humani t ar i an asyl um based on t he sever i t y of t he past

per secut i on he had exper i enced and t he ser i ous har mhe woul d suf f er

i f r et ur ned t o Guatemal a, i n case t he BI A f ound t hat changed

ci r cumst ances i n Guatemal a under cut t he reasonabl eness of hi s f ear

of f ut ur e per secut i on.

On J anuar y 10, 2013, t he BI A af f i r med t he I J ' s deci si on

i n a br i ef opi ni on. Fi r st , t he BI A agr eed t hat Or donez- Qui no had

not est abl i shed a suf f i ci ent l i nk bet ween t he past har ms he

suf f er ed and a pr otect ed gr ound t o qual i f y f or asyl um. Second, i t

f ound that t he harms Or donez- Qui no sai d he exper i enced i n the past

-9-


10/33

di d not amount t o per secut i on. Thi r d, t he BI A sai d t hat even i f

Or donez- Qui no had est abl i shed past persecut i on on account of a

pr otect ed gr ound, changed count r y condi t i ons woul d have rebut t ed

hi s cl ai m t o a wel l - f ounded f ear of f ut ur e per secut i on.

Fi nal l y, t he BI A f ound t hat Or donez- Qui no had wai ved any

cl ai mt o humani t ar i an asyl umby not speci f i cal l y r ai si ng i t bef or e

t he I J . I t went on t o say t hat even i f Or donez- Qui no had not

wai ved t hi s cl ai m, Or donez- Qui no was not el i gi bl e f or humani t ar i an

asyl um because he had not est abl i shed past per secut i on. I n a

f oot not e, t he BI A added:

Even i f [ Or donez- Qui no] had shown that hi si nj ur i es dur i ng t he ci vi l war wer e on accountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound suf f i ci ent t o est abl i shpast per secut i on, [ Or donez- Qui no' s] case woul dnot warr ant humani t ar i an asyl um based on t hespeci al consi der at i ons di scussed i n Mat t er ofChen, [ 20 I . & N. Dec. 16, 18- 19 ( BI A 1989) ] .

Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

III. Discussion

Bef or e us, Or donez- Qui no cont ends t hat t he BI A' s and I J ' s

det er mi nat i ons t hat he di d not est abl i sh past per secut i on on

account of hi s r ace, et hni ci t y, and/ or i mput ed pol i t i cal opi ni on

wer e unsupport ed by subst ant i al evi dence. He f ur t her ar gues that

t he BI A commi t t ed l egal er r or by t r eat i ng humani t ar i an asyl umas a

f or m of r el i ef t hat an appl i cant must r equest i ndependent of a

-10-


11/33

past - per secut i on- based asyl um cl ai m i n or der t o pr eser ve i t . 6 We

addr ess each of hi s ar gument s i n t ur n.

A. Standard of Review

We usual l y r evi ew deci si ons of t he BI A, not t he I J .

I vanov v. Hol der , 736 F. 3d 5, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . But wher e, as

her e, "' t he BI A bot h adopt s t he f i ndi ngs of t he I J and di scusses

some of t he bases f or t he I J ' s deci si on, we have aut hor i t y t o

r evi ew t he deci si ons of bot h t he I J and t he BI A. ' " Romi l us v.

Ashcr of t , 385 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( quot i ngChen v. Ashcr of t ,

376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d Ci r . 2004) ) ; see i d. ( " [ W] her e t he BI A' s

deci si on adopt s por t i ons of t he I J ' s opi ni on, we r evi ew t hose

por t i ons of t he I J ' s opi ni on t hat t he BI A has adopt ed. ") ; see al so

J i anl i Chen v. Hol der , 703 F. 3d 17, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( " [ W] here,

as her e, t he BI A adopt s por t i ons of t he I J ' s f i ndi ngs whi l e addi ng

i t s own gl oss, we r evi ew bot h t he I J ' s and t he BI A' s deci si ons as

a uni t . " ) ; Cabas v. Hol der , 695 F. 3d 169, 173 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( "Because t he BI A adopt ed i n par t t he I J ' s deci si on . . . but al so

6 Or donez- Qui no al so says t he BI A er r ed as a mat t er of l aw bynot r ecogni zi ng i mput ed pol i t i cal opi ni on as a basi s f or asyl um.I f t hat i s i ndeed what t he BI A has done her e, we agr ee i t woul d beer r or . See Si ngh v. Mukasey, 543 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( " [ A] ni mput ed pol i t i cal opi ni on, whet her cor r ect l y or i ncor r ect l yat t r i but ed, may const i t ut e a r eason f or pol i t i cal per secut i on

wi t hi n the meani ng of t he [ I mmi gr at i on and Nat i onal i t y] Act . "( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . But because we f i nd t he I Jand BI A er r ed by not f i ndi ng Or donez- Qui no el i gi bl e f or asyl umbased on t he gr ounds of r ace and et hni ci t y, we need not deal wi t ht hi s argument . We l i kewi se need not di scuss Or donez- Qui no' sar gument s t hat t he BI A and I J er r ed by denyi ng hi s r equest s f orwi t hhol di ng of r emoval and Convent i on Agai nst Tor t ur e r el i ef .

-11-


12/33

pr ovi ded addi t i onal anal ysi s, we r evi ew bot h deci si ons. ") .

We r evi ew t he BI A' s and I J ' s i nt er pr et at i ons of l aw de

novo, "subj ect t o appr opr i at e pr i nci pl es of admi ni st r at i ve

def er ence. " Lar i os v. Hol der , 608 F. 3d 105, 107 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

We r evi ew t hei r f i ndi ngs of f act i ncl udi ng whet her per secut i on

occur r ed on account of a pr otect ed gr ound " under t he f ami l i ar and

def er ent i al subst ant i al evi dence st andar d. " I vanov, 736 F. 3d at

11. We wi l l r espect t hei r f i ndi ngs so l ong as they ar e " ' suppor t ed

by r easonabl e, subst ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d

consi der ed as a whol e. ' " Lar i os, 608 F. 3d at 107 ( quot i ng I . N. S.

v. El i as- Zacar i as, 502 U. S. 478, 481 ( 1992) ) . "However , ' our

def er ence i s not unl i mi t ed, ' " and we must r ej ect t he BI A' s and I J ' s

f i ndi ngs i f " ' we cannot consci ent i ousl y f i nd t hat t he evi dence

suppor t i ng t hem i s subst ant i al , when vi ewed i n t he l i ght t hat t he

r ecor d i n i t s ent i r et y f ur ni shes, i ncl udi ng t he body of evi dence

opposed t o [ t hei r ] vi ew[ s] . ' " I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 11 ( quot i ng

Kar t asheva v. Hol der , 582 F. 3d 96, 105 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) ( i nt er nal

br acket s omi t t ed) ; see al so Mukamusoni v. Ashcrof t , 390 F. 3d 110,

119 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . We wi l l r ever se i f t he r ecord woul d compel a

r easonabl e f act - f i nder t o r each a cont r ar y concl usi on. Vasi l i v.

Hol der , 732 F. 3d 83, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Chhay v. Mukasey,

540 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) .

-12-


13/33

B. Asylum

To be el i gi bl e f or asyl um, a pet i t i oner must show he i s

unwi l l i ng or unabl e t o ret ur n to hi s home count r y "because of

per secut i on or a wel l - f ounded f ear of per secut i on on account of

r ace, r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y, member shi p i n a par t i cul ar soci al

gr oup, or pol i t i cal opi ni on. " 8 U. S. C. 1101( a) ( 42) ( A) ; see i d.

1158( b) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) ; I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 11. Pr oof of past

per secut i on cr eat es a pr esumpt i on of a wel l - f ounded f ear of f ut ur e

per secut i on. 8 C. F. R. 1208. 13( b) ( 1) ; I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 11.

The gover nment may r ebut t hi s presumpt i on by demonst r at i ng, by a

pr eponderance of t he evi dence, t hat " [ t ] here has been a f undament al

change i n ci r cumst ances such t hat t he [ pet i t i oner ] no l onger has a

wel l - f ounded f ear of per secut i on, " or t hat t he pet i t i oner "coul d

avoi d f ut ur e per secut i on by rel ocat i ng t o anot her par t of [ hi s]

count r y of nat i onal i t y . . . and under al l t he ci r cumst ances, i t

woul d be r easonabl e t o expect [ hi m] t o do so. " 8 C. F. R.

1208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i ) ( A) - ( B) .

1. Past Persecution

Per secut i on i s a f l ui d t er m, not def i ned by st at ut e.

I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 11 ( quot i ng Lopez de Hi ncapi e v. Gonzal es, 494

F. 3d 213, 217 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) . We know i t r equi r es t hat " t he sum

of [ a pet i t i oner ' s] exper i ences . . . add up t o mor e t han or di nar y

har assment , mi st r eat ment , or suf f er i ng. " Lopez de Hi ncapi e, 494

F. 3d at 217. I t "nor mal l y i nvol ves ' sever e mi st r eat ment at t he

-13-


14/33

hands of [ a pet i t i oner ' s] own gover nment , ' " or " ' non- gover nment al

act or s . . . i n l eague wi t h . . . or . . . not cont r ol l abl e by t he

gover nment . ' " Ayal a v. Hol der , 683 F. 3d 15, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( quot i ng Si l va v. Ashcrof t , 394 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) . But

wi t hi n these br oad par amet er s, cour t s usual l y assess whet her har m

r i ses t o t he l evel of per secut i on on a case- by- case basi s. Sok v.

Mukasey, 526 F. 3d 48, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Agui l ar - Sol i s v.

I . N. S. , 168 F. 3d 565, 570 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) .

For pur poses of asyl um, a pet i t i oner must demonst r ate

t hat t he har mhe exper i enced occur r ed "on account of " a st at ut or i l y

pr ot ect ed gr ound. I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 12. Af t er passage of t he

REAL I D Act of 2005, t hi s means a pr ot ect ed gr ound must be at l east

" ' one cent r al r eason' f or t he mi st r eat ment , " and i t must not be

"' i nci dent al , t angent i al , super f i ci al , or subor di nat e t o anot her

r eason f or har m. ' " 7 Si ngh v. Mukasey, 543 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) ( quot i ng I n r e J - B- N- & S- M- , 24 I . & N. Dec. 208, 214 ( BI A

2007) ) ; see 8 U. S. C. 1158( b) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) . A pet i t i oner need not

pr ovi de di r ect pr oof of mot i ve, but he must put f or t h "some

evi dence on t he subj ect due t o i t s i mpor t ance i n t he st at ut or y

scheme. " Si ngh, 543 F. 3d at 5 ( ci t i ng Babani v. Gonzal es, 492 F. 3d

20, 22- 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) .

7 The REAL I D Act of 2005 appl i es t o al l appl i cat i ons t hat ,l i ke Or donez- Qui no' s, wer e f i l ed on or af t er May 11, 2005. See 8U. S. C. 1158 not e ( ef f ect i ve dat e of 2005 amendment ) ; Moreno v.Hol der , 749 F. 3d 40, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-14-


15/33

a. Nexus to a Protected Ground

Or donez- Qui no says t he I J ' s det er mi nat i on t hat he di d not

est abl i sh t he r equi si t e nexus bet ween t he harms he suf f er ed and hi s

Mayan Qui ch r ace and ethni ci t y was not suppor t ed by subst ant i al

evi dence. We agr ee. I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, i t appear s t hat

t he I J and t he BI A f ol l owi ng sui t i gnor ed or unr easonabl y

i nt er pr et ed cr uci al document ar y evi dence l i nki ng Or donez- Qui no' s

exper i ences t o hi s prot ect ed Mayan Qui ch i dent i t y.

Wi t h r espect t o t he at t ack t hat caused Or donez- Qui no t o

l ose hi s hear i ng, t he I J sai d:

The bombi ng whi ch occur r ed i n 1980 and dur i ngt he per i od of t he ci vi l war cannot be f ound t obe preci pi t at ed by t he Guat emal an ar my bombi ngt he Mayan Qui ch[ ] popul at i on. Rat her , t hebombi ng at t acks were t aki ng pl ace i n or neart hese communi t i es because i t was bel i eved t hatt her e wer e guer r i l l as i n or near t hesecommuni t i es.

To t he ext ent t hat a cer t ai n r aci smexi st ed att hat t i me, i t st i l l was not a basi s f orbombi ng i n or near t he Mayan Qui ch[ ]vi l l ages. Rat her , t he r aci sm was t he basi s,however f ounded or unf ounded, of t heGuatemal an mi l i t ary bel i evi ng t hat t he MayanQui ch[ ] communi t y was sympat het i c t o t heguer r i l l a cause and wer e har bor i ng guer r i l l as.

I f i nd based on t he document ary evi dence t hatal t hough [ Or donez- Qui no] was i nj ur ed andsuf f er ed hear i ng l oss because of t he bombi ng

r ai ds t hat t he bombi ng r ai ds wer e not di r ect edat t he Mayan Qui ch[ ] communi t y per se, but ,r at her , t hey wer e on account of t he ci vi l warwhi ch was goi ng on at t he t i me and on t hebasi s of t he Guatemal an army seeki ng to f er r etout and dest r oy the guer r i l l a enemi es. Thepur pose of t he bombi ng was not t o dest r oy the

-15-


16/33

Mayan Qui ch[ ] communi t y.

The I J f ur t her f ound " t hat t he t r agi c damage t o [ Or donez- Qui no' s]

ear s as a resul t of t he bombi ng dur i ng t he ci vi l war i n 1980 [ was]

as a r esul t of t he ci vi l war and gener al condi t i ons of st r i f e and

vi ol ence whi ch exi st ed i n Guat emal a at t he t i me. "

The BI A agreed wi t h t he I J ' s t ake, r ei t er at i ng hi s

f i ndi ng t hat "al l Mayans wer e t ar get ed because of t hei r suspect ed

suppor t of t he guer [ r ] i l l as, " and sayi ng Or donez- Qui no "ha[ d] not

shown that he was t arget ed based on et hni ci t y r at her t han bei ng a

vi ct i m of vi ol ence i nci dent t o t he ci vi l war . "

However , t he Hi st or i cal Cl ar i f i cat i on Repor t , as wel l as

other document ary evi dence Or donez- Qui no submi t t ed, t el l s a

di f f er ent st or y. Accor di ng t o t he Repor t , r aci smwas an under l yi ng

cause of t he Guatemal an Ci vi l War and "a basi c expl anatory f actor

f or t he i ndi scri mi nat e nat ur e and par t i cul ar br ut al i t y wi t h whi ch

mi l i t ar y oper at i ons wer e car r i ed out agai nst hundr eds of Mayan

communi t i es. " Hi st or i cal Cl ar i f i cat i on Repor t , Concl usi ons, 12,

33. " [ D] ur i ng t he bl oodi est year s of t he conf r ont at i on, " "Mayan

communi t i es . . . became a mi l i t ar y obj ect i ve. " I d. at Concl usi ons,

62. Ei ght y- t hr ee per cent of t he war ' s i dent i f i ed vi ct i ms wer e

Mayan. I d. at Concl usi ons, 1.

Though t he ar my di d, as t he I J r epor t ed, associ at e Mayan

communi t i es wi t h guer r i l l a- suppor t er s, "i n t he maj or i t y of cases,

t he i dent i f i cat i on of Mayan communi t i es wi t h t he i nsurgency was

-16-


17/33

i nt ent i onal l y exagger at ed by the St at e, whi ch, based on t r adi t i onal

r aci st pr ej udi ces, used t hi s i dent i f i cat i on t o el i mi nat e any

pr esent or f ut ur e possi bi l i t i es of t he peopl e pr ovi di ng hel p f or ,

or j oi ni ng, an i nsur gent pr oj ect . " I d. at Concl usi ons, 31.

The consequence of t hi s mani pul at i on . . . wasmassi ve and i ndi scr i mi nat e aggr essi on di r ect edagai nst communi t i es i ndependent of t hei ractual i nvol vement i n the guer r i l l a movementand wi t h a cl ear i ndi f f er ence t o t hei r st at usas a non- combat ant ci vi l i an popul at i on. Themassacres, scorched ear t h oper at i ons, f or ceddi sappear ances and execut i ons of Mayanaut hor i t i es, l eader s[ , ] and spi r i t ual gui des,wer e not onl y an at t empt t o dest r oy t he soci albase of t he guer r i l l as, but above al l , t odest r oy t he cul t ur al val ues t hat ensur edcohesi on and col l ect i ve act i on i n Mayancommuni t i es.

I d. at Concl usi ons, 32. Fur t her mor e, t he ar my' s i nf l at ed

per cept i on of Mayans as guer r i l l a al l i es "cont r i but ed t o i ncreasi ng

and aggr avat i ng t he human r i ght s vi ol at i ons per pet r at ed agai nst

t hem, demonst r at i ng an aggr essi ve r aci st component of ext r emecr uel t y t hat l ed t o t he ext er mi nat i on en masse[ ] of def en[ s] el ess

Mayan communi t i es pur por t edl y l i nked t o guer r i l l as i ncl udi ng

chi l dr en, women[ , ] and t he el der l y. " I d. at Concl usi ons, 85.

Consi der i ng t hese r epeat ed "dest r uct i ve act s, di r ect ed

syst emat i cal l y agai nst gr oups of t he Mayan popul at i on, " i ncl udi ng

"agai nst mi nor s who coul d not possi bl y have been mi l i t ary t ar get s, "t he Hi st or i cal Cl ar i f i cat i on Repor t f ound t hat " t he onl y common

denomi nat or " among vi ct i ms was member shi p i n a Mayan et hni c gr oup,

and t he Guatemal an mi l i t ary' s act s wer e commi t t ed "wi t h i nt ent t o

-17-


18/33

dest r oy" t hese gr oups, "i n whol e or i n par t . " I d. at Concl usi ons,

111. The Repor t ul t i mat el y concl uded t hat t he Guat emal an St at e

had "commi t t ed act s of genoci de agai nst gr oups of Mayan peopl e" i n

f our r egi ons, i ncl udi ng Or donez- Qui no' s homet own of Zacual pa,

bet ween 1981 and 1983. 8 I d. at Concl usi ons, 110, 122.

Thus, whi l e t he I J cor r ect l y not ed t hat Mayan communi t i es

l i ke Or donez- Qui no' s wer e t ar get ed dur i ng t he ci vi l war i n par t

because of t hei r r eal or i magi ned connect i on t o guer r i l l a f or ces,

t he document ary evi dence does not suppor t hi s f i ndi ng t hat t he

pur pose of such at t acks " was not t o dest r oy t he Mayan . . .

communi t y. " I n f act , t hat was pr eci sel y t he mi l i t ar y' s ai m, as

expl i ci t l y f ound by Guat emal a' s own Hi st or i cal Cl ar i f i cat i on

Commi ss i on, and consi st ent wi t h numerous document ary sour ces i n t he

8 The Repor t adopt ed t he Uni t ed Nat i ons' def i ni t i on ofgenoci de as:

[ A] ny of t he f ol l owi ng act s commi t t ed wi t h i nt ent t odest r oy, i n whol e or i n par t , a nat i onal , et hni c[ ] ,raci al [ , ] or r el i gi ous group, . . . :a) Ki l l i ng member s of t he gr oup;b) Causi ng ser i ous bodi l y or ment al har mt o members of

t he gr oup;c) Del i ber at el y i nf l i ct i ng on t he gr oup condi t i ons of

l i f e cal cul at ed t o br i ng about i t s physi caldest r uct i on i n whol e or i n par t ;

d) I mposi ng measures i nt ended t o pr event bi r t hs wi t hi nt he gr oup;

e) For ci bl y t r ansf er r i ng chi l dr en of t he gr oup t oanot her gr oup.

Hi st or i cal Cl ar i f i cat i on Repor t , Concl usi ons, 109 ( ci t i ng U. N.Convent i on on t he Prevent i on and Puni shment of t he Cr i me ofGenoci de, ar t . 2, appr oved Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U. N. T. S. 277 ( ent er edi nt o f or ce J an. 12, 1951) ) .

-18-


19/33

r ecor d. Fur t her mor e, t he evi dence does not suppor t t he I J ' s

concl usi on t hat t he at t acks on Or donez- Qui no' s vi l l age wer e mer el y

"a resul t of t he ci vi l war and gener al condi t i ons of st r i f e and

vi ol ence whi ch exi st ed i n Guat emal a at t he t i me. " Rat her , t he

evi dence shows t hat Or donez- Qui no' s communi t y and ot her s were

i nt ent i onal l y t ar get ed by gover nment f orces dur i ng t he war because

of t hei r Mayan i dent i t y. Cf . Ar eval o- Gi r on v. Hol der , 667 F. 3d 79,

82- 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( f i ndi ng agency' s det er mi nat i on t hat

Guat emal an pet i t i oner ' s f at her was "a r andomcasual t y of t he ci vi l

war" was support ed by subst ant i al evi dence wher e pet i t i oner di d not

al l ege f at her was a member of t he ar my, t he guer r i l l as, or t he

ci vi l pat r ol or a t ar get ed r aci al or et hni c gr oup) .

We do not r equi r e an asyl umappl i cant t o demonst r ate t hat

he was si ngl ed out onl y due to hi s pr ot ect ed t r ai t ; r at her , he must

show t hat such char act er i st i c was " one cent r al r eason" f or hi s

abuse. Si ngh, 543 F. 3d at 5; see I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 14- 15

( appl yi ng pr e- REAL I D Act st andar d) . Rar el y wi l l an appl i cant know

t he "exact mot i vat i on" of hi s per secut ors especi al l y when he was

vi ct i mi zed as a young chi l d and, " ' of cour se, per secut or s may

of t en have more t han one mot i vat i on. ' " See I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 15

( al t er at i on omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Sompotan v. Mukasey, 533 F. 3d 63, 69

( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) . Or donez- Qui no has ampl y shown t hat hi s Mayan

Qui ch i dent i t y was " at l east one cent r al r eason" why he and hi s

communi t y wer e t ar geted by t he Guat emal an ar my, and he need show no

-19-


20/33

mor e t han t hat . Thus, we f i nd t hat t he I J ' s concl usi on, echoed by

t he BI A, t hat Or donez- Qui no di d not demonst r at e an adequat e nexus

between the harms he exper i enced dur i ng the ci vi l war and a

pr ot ect ed gr ound i s not suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence "' when

vi ewed i n t he l i ght t hat t he r ecor d i n i t s ent i r et y f ur ni shes,

i ncl udi ng t he body of evi dence opposed t o t he [ I J ' s] vi ew. ' " 9

I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 11 ( quot i ng Kart asheva, 582 F. 3d at 105) .

Consequent l y, i t must be vacat ed. 10

b. Degree of Harm

Because t he I J f ound that Or donez- Qui no had not met t he

nexus r equi r ement , he di d not deci de whet her t he har ms Or donez-

Qui no exper i enced as a Mayan Qui ch i n Guat emal a rose t o t he l evel

of past per secut i on. The BI A, on t he ot her hand, pr oceeded t o f i nd

t hat , i n addi t i on t o l acki ng t he r equi si t e nexus, Or donez- Qui no' s

"account of bei ng di scr i mi nat ed agai nst due t o hi s ethni ci t y [ di d]

not amount t o past per secut i on. " "Mor eover , " t he BI A sai d, " t he

i sol at ed nat ur e of bot h t he ci vi l war - r el at ed bombi ng and t he

r espondent ' s i nci dent wi t h a gang does not suppor t a cl ai m of

asyl um. " We hol d t hat t hi s f i ndi ng al so was not suppor t ed by

9 Thi s i s not t he f i r st t i me t hat an I J has i gnor ed t heHi stor i cal Cl ar i f i cat i on Repor t ' s f i ndi ngs at hi s or her per i l .

See J or ge- Tzoc, 435 F. 3d at 149- 50 ( f i ndi ng, i nt er al i a, t hat I Jer r ed when she f ai l ed t o t ake i nt o account Repor t ' s f i ndi ngs) .

10 We do not di st ur b t he I J ' s f i ndi ng t hat Or donez- Qui no di dnot est abl i sh a nexus bet ween the 2005 gang at t ack and hi s MayanQui ch i dent i t y. However , on r emand t he agency may wi sh t or econsi der t hi s det er mi nat i on af t er di ggi ng deeper i n t he r ecor d.

-20-


21/33

subst ant i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d.

As a ref r esher , t o const i t ut e per secut i on, "t he sumof [ a

pet i t i oner ' s] exper i ences must add up to mor e t han or di nar y

har assment , mi st r eat ment , or suf f er i ng. " Lopez de Hi ncapi e, 494

F. 3d at 217; see Ni ki j ul uw v. Gonzal es, 427 F. 3d 115, 120 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) ( "[ P] ast per secut i on r equi r es t hat t he t ot al i t y of a

pet i t i oner ' s exper i ences add up t o more t han mer e di scomf i t ur e,

unpl easant ness, harassment , or unf ai r t r eatment . " ) . The abuse must

al so "have r eached a f ai r l y hi gh t hr eshol d of ser i ousness, as wel l

as some r egul ar i t y and f r equency. " I vanov, 736 F. 3d at 11 ( quot i ng

Rebenko v. Hol der , 693 F. 3d 87, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . But wi t hi n t hese br oad gui depost s, we

usual l y assess whet her a par t i cul ar pet i t i oner was per secut ed on a

case- by- case basi s. See Sok, 526 F. 3d at 53 ( quot i ng Agui l ar -

Sol i s, 168 F. 3d at 570) .

As sever al of our si st er ci r cui t s have r ecogni zed, "age

can be a cr i t i cal f act or " i n det er mi ni ng whet her a pet i t i oner ' s

exper i ences cr oss t hi s t hr eshol d. Li u v. Ashcr of t , 380 F. 3d 307,

314 ( 7t h Ci r . 2004) ; see, e. g. , Her nandez- Or t i z v. Gonzal es, 496

F. 3d 1042, 1045 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ; J or ge- Tzoc v. Gonzal es, 435 F. 3d

146, 150 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( per cur i am) . Wher e t he event s t hat f or m

t he basi s of a past per secut i on cl ai m wer e per cei ved when t he

pet i t i oner was a chi l d, t he f act - f i nder must " l ook at t he event s

f r om [ t he chi l d' s] per spect i ve, [ and] measur e t he degr ee of [ hi s]

-21-


22/33

i nj ur i es by t hei r i mpact on [ a chi l d] of [ hi s] age[ ] . " Her nandez-

Or t i z, 496 F. 3d at 1046. The "' har m a chi l d f ear s or has suf f er ed

. . . may be r el at i vel y l ess t han t hat of an adul t and st i l l

qual i f y as per secut i on. ' " Li u, 380 F. 3d at 314 ( quot i ng J ef f

Wei ss, U. S. Dep' t of J ust i ce, Gui del i nes f or Chi l dr en' s Asyl um

Cl ai ms, 1998 WL 34032561, at *14 ( Dec. 10, 1998) ) . Moreover , harm

t o a chi l d' s f ami l y or communi t y upon whom t he chi l d depends

may cont r i but e t o a f i ndi ng of per secut i on agai nst t he chi l d

hi msel f . See J orge- Tzoc, 435 F. 3d at 150; see al so Her nandez-

Or t i z, 496 F. 3d at 1045- 46.

Or donez- Qui no' s past per secut i on cl ai mi s pr i mar i l y based

on har ms he exper i enced as a Mayan Qui ch chi l d gr owi ng up dur i ng

t he Guat emal an Ci vi l War . Those har ms i ncl ude numerous at t acks by

Guat emal an sol di er s on hi s vi l l age one of whi ch l ef t hi m al most

compl et el y deaf and st unt ed hi s devel opment as wel l as t he

ongoi ng depr i vat i on, r el ocat i ons, and di scr i mi nat i on he and hi s

f ami l y f aced over t he year s. 11

The BI A appears t o have commi t t ed t wo er r or s i n assess i ng

Or donez- Qui no' s past per secut i on cl ai m. Fi r st , r at her t han

consi der i ng t he harms Or donez- Qui no exper i enced cumul at i vel y, t he

BI A consi der ed onl y t wo of t he i nci dent s Or donez- Qui no descr i bed:

11 Lat er , Or donez- Qui no says he was t hreat ened and beat en bygangs as an adul t i n Guat emal a Ci t y, but we wi l l not consi der t hesei nci dent s because we have not di st ur bed t he I J ' s and BI A' s f i ndi ngst hat t hese i nci dent s wer e not l i nked t o a pr ot ect ed gr ound.

-22-


23/33

t he 1980 bombi ng t hat r esul t ed i n hi s hear i ng l oss, and t he 2005

gang at t ack t hat pr eci pi t at ed Or donez- Qui no' s depar t ur e f r om

Guatemal a. By descr i bi ng t he bombi ng as an " i sol ated" i nci dent ,

t he BI A i mpl i ci t l y rej ect ed ( wi t hout expl anat i on) Or donez- Qui no' s

descri pt i on of t he pl ur al "att acks" waged agai nst hi s vi l l age

dur i ng t he ci vi l war and t he t r auma he and hi s f ami l y suf f er ed as

a r esul t , t her eby agai n i gnor i ng cruci al evi dence i n t he r ecor d.

Second and r el at edl y, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he BI A

consi der ed t he harms Or donez- Qui no suf f er ed t hr oughout t hi s per i od

f r om hi s per spect i ve as a chi l d, or t hat i t t ook the har ms hi s

f ami l y suf f er ed i nt o account . Or donez- Qui no was ver y young at t he

t i me of t he at t acks on hi s vi l l age. He r emember s "bei ng ext r emel y

f r i ght ened" and "wi t ness[ i ng] many t er r i bl e t hi ngs" as sol di er s

shot at , bombed, and ki l l ed members of hi s communi t y. At age f i ve

or si x, he was hor r i f i cal l y i nj ur ed i n a bombi ng at t ack t hat

r esul t ed i n a l engt hy, sever e i l l ness and per manent , near - t ot al

hear i ng l oss. He says t hat "not bei ng abl e t o hear was . . .

t er r i f yi ng. " Thi s i nj ur y al t er ed t he cour se of Or donez- Qui no' s

l i f e dr amat i cal l y he l ost t he abi l i t y t o speak cl ear l y, had

di f f i cul t y l ear ni ng, and became mor e vul ner abl e t o vi ol ence. Hi s

f ami l y, upon whomhe was t ot al l y dependent , suf f er ed gr eat l y dur i ng

t he at t acks as wel l and event ual l y was f or ced t o rel ocat e f or

sur vi val . Thi s combi nat i on of ci r cumst ances bombi ng at t acks,

per manent i nj ur y, t he l oss of a home, t he r azi ng of l ands, and

-23-


24/33

i nt er nal di spl acement l ast i ng year s coul d cer t ai nl y suppor t a

f i ndi ng of past per secut i on f or an adul t . Such a st r i ng of event s

even mor e st r ongl y suppor t s a f i ndi ng of past per secut i on f or a

smal l chi l d, whose f or mat i ve year s wer e spent i n t er r or and pai n.

Because t he BI A f ai l ed t o addr ess t he harms Or donez- Qui no

and hi s f ami l y exper i enced cumul at i vel y and f r omt he per spect i ve of

a chi l d, i t s det er mi nat i on i s not suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence

i n t he r ecor d. Thus, we must vacat e t he BI A' s det er mi nat i on t hat

t he har ms Or donez- Qui no and hi s f ami l y suf f er ed di d not r i se t o the

l evel of past per secut i on. See J or ge- Tzoc, 435 F. 3d at 150.

On r emand, bear i ng t hese pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, t he agency

must det ermi ne whet her t he har ms Or donez- Qui no suf f ered i n

Guat emal a on account of hi s Mayan i dent i t y meet t he st andard of

past per secut i on, vi ewed i n t he aggr egat e and f r om t he per spect i ve

of a chi l d of Or donez- Qui no' s age when t hese event s occur r ed. We

f ur t her note t hat t hough t he agency' s r evi ew may pr oper l y account

f or bot h t he cumul at i ve natur e of t hese event s and Or donez- Qui no' s

yout h, cor r ect i on of ei t her er r or coul d pr ove a suf f i ci ent basi s

f or a f i ndi ng of past per secut i on on r emand.

2. Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution

Af t er f i ndi ng t hat Or donez- Qui no had not demonst r ated

past per secut i on on account of a pr ot ect ed gr ound, t he I J went on

t o f i nd t hat Or donez- Qui no al so f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a wel l - f ounded

f ear of f ut ur e per secut i on on account of a pr ot ect ed gr ound. For

-24-


25/33

t hi s concl usi on, he r el i ed on t he ongoi ng pr esence of Or donez-

Qui no' s f ami l y member s who shar e hi s pr ot ect ed t r ai t s i n t hei r

vi l l age. He f ur t her sai d t hat any gang vi ol ence Or donez- Qui no

f ear ed i n t he f ut ur e woul d not be because of hi s prot ect ed

char act er i st i cs, "but r at her onl y i n f ur t her ance of [ t he gang' s]

r epr ehensi bl e cr i mi nal i t y. "

On remand, i f t he agency determi nes t hat t he harm

Or donez- Qui no suf f ered as a Mayan Qui ch chi l d i n Guat emal a rose to

t he l evel of past per secut i on, a di f f er ent anal ysi s wi l l be

r equi r ed. As we set out above, past per secut i on cr eat es a

pr esumpt i on of f ut ur e persecut i on, whi ch t he government can r ebut

by demonst rati ng that there has been a fundamental change of ci rcumst ances i n

Guatemal a such that the appl i cant ' s f ear can no l onger be consi dered wel l -

f ounded. 12 8 C. F.R. 1208. 13(b)(1)( i ) (A) . To overcome the presumpt i on, the

government must show that "' changes i n country condi t i ons . . . have negated

t he par t i cul ar appl i cant ' s wel l - f ounded f ear of per secut i on, ' "

t aki ng hi s i ndi vi dual si t uat i on i nt o account . Her nandez- Bar r er a v.

Ashcr of t , 373 F. 3d 9, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( quot i ng Fer gi st e v.

I . N. S. , 138 F. 3d 14, 18- 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) .

Unl i ke t he I J , af t er f i ndi ng t hat Or donez- Qui no had not

demonst r at ed past persecut i on on account of a pr otect ed gr ound, t he

12 The gover nment can al so r ebut t he presumpt i on by showi ngOr donez- Qui no coul d avoi d persecut i on by movi ng t o anot her par t ofGuatemal a and i t woul d be r easonabl e t o expect hi m t o do so. 8C. F. R. 1208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i ) ( B) .

-25-


26/33

BI A pr oceeded t o hol d t hat even i f Or donez- Qui no had shown past

per secut i on, changed count r y condi t i ons woul d have r ebut t ed hi s

cl ai m t o a wel l - f ounded f ear of f ut ur e per secut i on. For suppor t ,

t he BI A ci t ed t hi s cour t ' s deci si on i n Pal ma- Mazar i egos v.

Gonzal es, 428 F. 3d 30, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . That case t r eat ed t he

di st i nct i ssue of whet her a Guat emal an pet i t i oner had a reasonabl e

f ear of f ut ur e har m based on hi s r ef usal t o j oi n t he guer r i l l a

f or ces. I d. at 33. The cour t t her e not ed t hat evi dence showed t he

guer r i l l as had been i nt egr at ed i nt o t he gover nment af t er t he ci vi l

war and no l onger engaged i n mi l i t ant act i vi t i es. I d. at 35- 36.

As a resul t , t he cour t f ound t hat t he r ecor d suppor t ed t he BI A' s

f i ndi ng of changed condi t i ons suf f i ci ent t o r ebut t hat pet i t i oner ' s

asser t ed f ear of f ut ur e har m. I d. at 37.

Or donez- Qui no, on t he ot her hand, says he has a wel l -

f ounded f ear of f ut ur e per secut i on based on hi s Mayan Qui ch race

and et hni ci t y. He pr ovi des si gni f i cant document at i on of ongoi ng

syst emi c raci sm and human r i ght s vi ol at i ons agai nst t he Mayan

Qui ch communi t y. See, e. g. , U. S. Dep' t of St at e, 2009 Human

Ri ght s Repor t s: Guat emal a 5- 6 ( 2010) ( not i ng, i nt er al i a,

t hr eat s t o and mur der s of i ndi genous l eader s; per vasi ve

di scr i mi nat i on agai nst i ndi genous communi t y; and l and di sput e wher e

pol i ce evi ct ed r oughl y 80 i ndi genous communi t y members f r om t hei r

homes, burned t hei r homes, and dest r oyed t hei r cr ops) ; Guat emal an

Human Ri ght s Comm' n, Guat emal a Human Ri ghts Revi ew, J anuar y-

-26-


27/33

Sept ember 2007 7 ( 2007) ( descr i bi ng vi ol ent evi ct i ons of i ndi genous

f ami l i es f r omnat i ve l ands at hands of pol i ce of f i cer s and mi l i t ar y

per sonnel ) .

The BI A' s qui ck di smi ssal of Or donez- Qui no' s f ear - of -

f ut ur e- per secut i on cl ai m wi t h a concl usor y st at ement and an

i napposi t e case ci t at i on, wi t hout any ref er ence t o t he vol umi nous

r ecor d, i s not a f i ndi ng suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence. See

Gai l i us v. I . N. S. , 147 F. 3d 34, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( "I n or der f or

t hi s cour t t o conduct a pr oper subst ant i al evi dence r evi ew of t he

BI A' s deci si on, t he [ BI A' s] opi ni on must st at e wi t h suf f i ci ent

par t i cul ar i t y and cl ar i t y t he r easons f or deni al of asyl um. "

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . The BI A appear s not t o have

made any at t empt t o assay t he evi dence of cur r ent condi t i ons i n

Guat emal a f or Or donez- Qui no speci f i cal l y, and t her eby f ai l ed t o

under t ake t he t ype of par t i cul ar i zed anal ysi s t hat our st andar ds

demand. See Hernandez- Bar r era, 373 F. 3d at 25.

Accor di ngl y, i f t he agency now f i nds t hat Or donez- Qui no

has i n f act demonst r at ed past per secut i on, i t wi l l need t o

det ermi ne whet her t he government has r ebut t ed Or donez- Qui no' s

cor ol l ar y pr esumpt i on of a wel l - f ounded f ear consi der i ng t he

evi dence put f or t h i n t hi s r ecor d and hi s i ndi vi dual si t uat i on.

3. Humanitarian Asylum

Fur t her mor e, i f t he agency f i nds bot h t hat Or donez- Qui no

has est abl i shed past per secut i on and t hat t he gover nment has

-27-


28/33

r ebut t ed hi s f ear of f ut ur e per secut i on, Or donez- Qui no may

never t hel ess be abl e to obt ai n di scret i onar y asyl umr el i ef based on

past per secut i on al one under t he "humani t ar i an except i on. " See

Guer r er o v. Hol der , 667 F. 3d 74, 79 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng 8

C. F. R. 1208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i i i ) ) . Thi s except i on per mi t s a

deci si onmaker t o gr ant an asyl umappl i cant ' s r equest f or r el i ef "i n

t he absence of [ a] wel l - f ounded f ear of f ut ur e per secut i on" i f :

( A) The appl i cant has demonst r at edcompel l i ng r easons f or bei ng unwi l l i ngor unabl e t o ret ur n t o t he count r yar i si ng out of t he sever i t y of t he pastper secut i on; or

( B) The appl i cant has est abl i shed t hatt her e i s a r easonabl e possi bi l i t y t hathe or she may suf f er other ser i ous har mupon r emoval t o that count r y.

8 C. F. R. 1208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i i i ) ( A) - ( B) ; see al so Mat t er of Chen, 20

I . & N. Dec. 16, 19 ( BI A 1989) .

To qual i f y f or humani t ar i an asyl umbased on t he sever i t yof past per secut i on, an appl i cant must pr ove t hat he or she

exper i enced "ext r aor di nar y suf f er i ng" i n t he past . Zar oui t e v.

Gonzal es, 424 F. 3d 60, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . I n ot her wor ds, "an

[ appl i cant ] must show past per secut i on so sever e t hat r epat r i at i on

woul d be i nhumane. " Tokar ska v. I . N. S. , 978 F. 2d 1, 2 ( 1st Ci r .

1992) ( per cur i am) ( quot i ng Baka v. I . N. S. , 963 F. 2d 1376, 1379( 10t h Ci r . 1992) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so

Pr ecet aj v. Hol der , 649 F. 3d 72, 77 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "[ T] he

paradi gm case i s one i n whi ch so much abuse has been di r ect ed

-28-


29/33

agai nst t he vi cti mt hat t he suf f er i ng i s pr oj ected i nt o t he f ut ur e

and t hat a ret ur n of t he appl i cant t o t he pl ace wher e the har m was

i nf l i ct ed woul d magni f y t he pr i or suf f er i ng. ") .

A showi ng of sever e har mand t he l ong- l ast i ng ef f ect s of

such harm, such as an ongoi ng or permanent di sabi l i t y, may suppor t

a di scr et i onar y gr ant of humani t ar i an asyl um. See J al l oh v.

Gonzal es, 498 F. 3d 148, 151 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he

agency requi r es a showi ng of bot h " ' sever e har m and the l ong-

l ast i ng ef f ect s of t hat har m' " t o obt ai n humani t ar i an asyl um

( quot i ng I n r e N- M- A- , 22 I . & N. Dec. 312, 326 ( BI A 1998) ) ) ;

Mohammed v. Gonzal es, 400 F. 3d 785, 801 ( 9th Ci r . 2005)

( r ecogni zi ng f emal e geni t al mut i l at i on as "a par t i cul ar l y sever e

f or mof past per secut i on because of i t s many cont i nui ng ef f ect s" ) ;

Mat t er of Chen, 20 I . & N. Dec. at 18; cf . Gebr u v. I . N. S. , 173

F. 3d 424 ( 4t h Ci r . 1999) ( per cur i am) ( unpubl i shed) ( af f i r mi ng

deni al of humani t ar i an asyl um wher e pet i t i oner "pr esent ed no

evi dence demonst r at i ng t hat she suf f er s f r om physi cal and

psychol ogi cal di sabi l i t i es l i ke t hose shown i n Mat t er of Chen") .

For exampl e, i n Mat t er of Chen, t he f i r st BI A deci si on i nvoki ng

humani t ar i an asyl um, t he BI A r el i ed i n par t on t he appl i cant ' s

cont i nui ng physi cal di sabi l i t y he had t o wear a hear i ng ai d due

t o i nj ur i es sust ai ned when r ocks wer e t hr own at hi s head at a young

age, was " al ways anxi ous and f ear f ul , and [ was] of t en sui ci dal "

i n deci di ng t o exer ci se di scret i on i n t he appl i cant ' s f avor . 20 I .

-29-


30/33

& N. Dec. at 20- 21.

Or donez- Qui no f i r st speci f i cal l y r equest ed humani t ar i an

asyl um bef or e t he BI A, cl ai mi ng el i gi bi l i t y based bot h on t he

sever i t y of har m under l yi ng hi s past per secut i on and t he ser i ous

harmhe woul d suf f er i f r emoved t o Guatemal a. I n r esponse, t he BI A

sai d Or donez- Qui no had wai ved hi s cl ai m t o humani t ar i an asyl um

because he had not expl i ci t l y r ai sed i t bef or e t he I J .

Al t er nat i vel y, t he BI A sai d t hat even i f Or donez- Qui no had not

wai ved hi s cl ai m, he was not el i gi bl e f or humani t ar i an asyl um

because he had not est abl i shed past per secut i on on account of a

pr ot ect ed gr ound. Even f ur t her , t he BI A sai d, i f Or donez- Qui no had

made the requi si t e showi ng of past per secut i on and nexus, he st i l l

woul d not qual i f y f or humani t ar i an asyl um based on t he

consi der at i ons di scussed i n Mat t er of Chen.

Bef ore us, Or donez- Qui no chal l enges each of t hese

concl usi ons. The gover nment , on t he other hand, says we l ack

j ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew t he BI A' s deni al of humani t ar i an asyl um. I n

t he al t er nat i ve, i t cont ends t he BI A di d not abuse i t s di scret i on

i n r ef usi ng t o gr ant humani t ar i an asyl um t o Or donez- Qui no. I t

f ur t her advi ses t hat we need not addr ess t he BI A' s wai ver

det er mi nat i on because we can uphol d t he BI A' s deci si on on ei t her of

t hese t wo bases.

Because we are r emandi ng Or donez- Qui no' s case t o

det er mi ne whet her he est abl i shed past per secut i on on account of a

-30-


31/33

prot ect ed ground, we need not comment on t he BI A' s ul t i mat e

concl usi ons r egar di ng hi s el i gi bi l i t y f or humani t ar i an asyl um.

However , f or t he sake of cl ar i t y on r emand, we make a f ew poi nt s.

Fi r st , we easi l y r ej ect t he gover nment ' s j ur i sdi ct i onal

ar gument . Thi s cour t has, on numer ous occasi ons, exer ci sed i t s

power t o r evi ew agency deci si ons r egar di ng appl i cant s' r equest s f or

humani t ar i an asyl um based on past per secut i on al one. See, e. g. ,

Precet aj , 649 F. 3d at 77- 78; Waweru v. Gonzal es, 437 F. 3d 199, 205

( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; Zar oui t e, 424 F. 3d at 64; Tokar ska, 978 F. 2d at 1-

2. The gover nment ' s ci t at i on t o Ang v. Gonzal es, 430 F. 3d 50, 57-

58 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) whi ch deal t wi t h an unr el at ed st at ut e gr ant i ng

t he At t or ney Gener al di scr et i on t o "par ol e i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es

t emporar i l y under such condi t i ons as he may pr escr i be onl y on a

case- by- case basi s f or ur gent humani t ar i an r easons or si gni f i cant

publ i c benef i t any al i en appl yi ng f or admi ssi on i nt o t he Uni t ed

St at es, " 8 U. S. C. 1182( d) ( 5) ( A) does not convi nce us t hat we

l ack power t o revi ew t he agency' s humani t ar i an asyl um

det er mi nat i ons.

Second, cont r ar y t o t he BI A' s asser t i on, Or donez- Qui no

di d not wai ve hi s cl ai m t o humani t ar i an asyl um by not expl i ci t l y

r equest i ng i t f r omt he I J apar t f r omhi s over al l past - per secut i on-

based asyl um cl ai m. As t he gover nment expl ai ns, what we r ef er t o

as " humani t ar i an asyl um" i s not a separ at e f or m of r el i ef creat ed

by t he I mmi gr at i on and Nat i onal i t y Act . Rat her , i t i s a

-31-


32/33

di scret i onar y f or mof r el i ef t hat may be gr ant ed t o cer t ai n asyl um

seeker s. 13 See 8 C. F. R. 1208. 13( b) ( 1) ( i i i ) ( A) - ( B) . Nei t her t he

BI A nor t he government has ci t ed any case and we have f ound none

r equi r i ng an asyl um seeker t o r equest humani t ar i an asyl um

i ndependent of ot her past - per secut i on- based asyl um r el i ef bef or e

t he I J i n or der t o pr eser ve hi s cl ai mt o humani t ar i an asyl umbef or e

t he BI A. 14 The l one case t he BI A ci t es i n suppor t of wai ver

Mat t er of J - Y- C- , 24 I . & N. Dec. 260, 261 n. 1 ( BI A 2007) does

not deal wi t h humani t ar i an asyl um. Rat her , i n t hat case, t he BI A

r ej ect ed an appl i cant ' s at t empt t o ar gue an ent i r el y new basi s f or

asyl um f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal , sayi ng he was " el i gi bl e f or

asyl um as a r esul t of hi s mot her ' s deat h . . . f r om an al l eged

f or ced st er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e, " when he had pr evi ousl y sought

asyl um based onl y on hi s r el i gi on. I d. Her e, on t he ot her hand,

Or donez- Qui no has consi st ent l y asser t ed el i gi bi l i t y f or asyl um

based on t he past har m he exper i enced i n Guat emal a on account of

hi s r ace and et hni ci t y.

13 By way of i l l ust r at i on, we not e, as di d Or donez- Qui no, t hatt her e i s no separ at e space i n t he asyl um appl i cat i on, For m I - 589,f or an appl i cant t o make a cl ai m f or "humani t ar i an asyl um, " asopposed t o "r egul ar" asyl um.

14 We have, however , f ound cases r equi r i ng an asyl umappl i cantt o r equest humani t ar i an asyl um at t he agency l evel i . e. , bef or et he BI A or I J pr i or t o aski ng t hi s cour t t o r evi ew t he agency' sdeni al of such r el i ef . See, e. g. , Zar oui t e, 424 F. 3d at 64;Vel squez v. Ashcr of t , 342 F. 3d 55, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) , abr ogat edon ot her gr ounds by Bocova v. Gonzal es, 412 F. 3d 257, 266 ( 1st Ci r .2005) . But t hat ' s a di f f er ent mat t er .

-32-


33/33

Fi nal l y, whi l e we make no comment on t he mer i t s of

Or donez- Qui no' s humani t ar i an asyl um cl ai m, we not e t hat t he BI A' s

concl usor y st atement t hat hi s case "woul d not warr ant humani t ar i an

asyl um based on t he speci al consi der at i ons di scussed i n Mat t er of

Chen, " even i f he had shown hi s i nj ur i es amount ed t o past

per secut i on on account of a pr ot ect ed gr ound wi t hout any

di scussi on of t he sever i t y of t he har ms Or donez- Qui no suf f er ed

woul d not wi t hst and subst ant i al evi dence r evi ew. See Gai l i us, 147

F. 3d at 46 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he BI A must st at e wi t h suf f i ci ent

par t i cul ar i t y and cl ar i t y i t s r easons f or deni al of asyl umf or t hi s

cour t t o conduct a pr oper subst ant i al evi dence r evi ew) .

Accordi ngl y, i f t he agency f i nds upon r emand that Or donez- Qui no has

est abl i shed past per secut i on but t hat t he pr esumpt i on of a wel l -

f ounded f ear of f ut ur e per secut i on i s r ebut t ed, i t must al so

determi ne whether t he persecut i on Or donez- Qui no exper i enced as

wel l as t he ongoi ng har m he suf f er s t oday due t o hi s hear i ng

di sabi l i t y and devel opment al di f f i cul t i es, and any har m he mi ght

suf f er upon r et ur ni ng t o Guat emal a war r ant a gr ant of

humani t ar i an asyl um.

IV. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he or der of t he BI A af f i r mi ng

t he I J ' s deci si on i s vacat ed and t he mat t er i s r emanded f or

pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s deci si on.

33

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents