ORELLANA AQUINO v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-16No. No. 20-71005

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of the immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief is upheld.

Ruben Alberto Orellana Aquino, a Salvadoran national, sought review of an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, with an order of removal to El Salvador upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Aquino challenged only the denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief on appeal. The court found that the immigration judge's determination that Aquino's experiences did not constitute persecution was supported by substantial evidence, and that Aquino failed to provide sufficient corroborating documentation to establish he held or was perceived as holding a political opinion that motivated his persecution.

Regarding CAT protection, the court determined that although country conditions evidence showed significant violence in El Salvador, Aquino presented only generalized evidence of violence rather than circumstances particular to him that would establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured upon return. The court upheld the immigration judge's conclusion that the evidence did not meet the threshold for CAT relief.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether harm suffered constitutes persecution requiring withholding of removal
Whether corroborating evidence adequately established political opinion as basis for persecution
Whether evidence supported finding that torture was more likely than not if removed to El Salvador

Procedural posture

A petition for review was filed challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of an immigration judge's decision denying withholding of removal and CAT relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Ruben Alberto Orellana Aquino, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without opinion, a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ denied Aquinos application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordered him removed to El Salvador. Aquino challenges the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. The IJs finding that the harm Aquino suffered does not rise to the level of persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that “[w]e review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence”); Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Where, as here, ‘the BIA summarily affirms the IJs decision, we review the IJs decision as the final agency action.’ ” (quoting Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam))). The IJ found that it was a “close call,” but “[p]ersecution is ‘an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.’ ” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028 (quoting Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)). The evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the IJs. See id. (stating that, under the substantial evidence standard, “we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion”).

Aquino also challenges the IJs reliance on the lack of evidence to corroborate his claim that he suffered persecution and would be subject to persecution on account of his political opinion if removed to El Salvador. “Even when assuming credibility, the IJ or BIA may require additional, corroborating evidence.” Jie Shi Liu v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 834, 838 (9th Cir. 2018). The IJ specified the type of corroborating evidence she required, such as the police report and more detailed letters from his family to establish their involvement with the ARENA political party and Aquinos relationship with Claudia Orellana. However, Aquino provided only his birth certificate and Claudias birth and death certificates. “These documents did not meaningfully corroborate the key factual contentions at issue.” Id. at 839. The evidence Aquino provided contained only general statements and did not establish that he “ ‘held (or that [his] persecutors believed that [he] held) a political opinion,’ ” and that his persecutors “persecuted [him] because of [that] political opinion.” Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 752 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th Cir. 2007)). The evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the IJs conclusion that Aquino failed to establish that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion.

2. The IJs denial of CAT relief also is supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to Aquinos contention, the IJ did consider the country conditions evidence and acknowledged that it showed “exceptional violence” in El Salvador. Nonetheless, she found it insufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that Aquino in particular would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (concluding that petitioner “has not shown a greater risk to him than any other Mexican national deported from the United States such that torture would be more likely than not in his case” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018) (reasoning that the IJ considered the country conditions, but “he was just not persuaded by it”); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (where petitioners’ “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico [was] not particular” to them, they failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief).

The petition for review is DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

. Aquino does not challenge the IJs finding that he is ineligible for asylum because his application was untimely.