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. The immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief is supported by substantial evidence.

Ruben Alberto Orellana Aquino, a Salvadoran national, sought review of an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge found that the harm Aquino experienced did not constitute persecution and that he failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to support his claims of persecution based on political opinion. Additionally, the judge determined that while El Salvador experiences significant violence, Aquino did not demonstrate that he personally faced a greater likelihood of torture than other nationals if returned to that country.

The court reviewed the immigration judge's findings under the substantial evidence standard, which requires upholding the agency's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. The court found that the immigration judge properly assessed Aquino's persecution claims and reasonably required additional corroborating documentation beyond birth certificates and general statements. Similarly, the court concluded that generalized country conditions evidence alone was insufficient to establish that Aquino would more likely than not be tortured upon removal.

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

Key issues

Whether harm suffered constitutes persecution under immigration law
Sufficiency of corroborating evidence for persecution claims based on political opinion
Whether country conditions evidence establishes individualized risk of torture under the Convention Against Torture

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that summarily affirmed an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, with an order of removal to El Salvador.

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.