QUINTANILLA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-21No. No. 20-71384

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of deferral of removal protection under the Convention Against Torture was affirmed.

Jose Darwin Quintanilla, a Salvadoran national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' rejection of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Quintanilla argued he faced a serious risk of torture if returned to El Salvador, citing past beatings related to gang activity and his refusal to join a gang. The court examined whether substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that Quintanilla failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of torture upon removal.

The court upheld the BIA's decision on two grounds. First, the court found that Quintanilla's prior assailants lacked motivation to torture him upon his return, particularly given that he had previously lived safely with his father in El Salvador. Additionally, the court determined that Quintanilla could reasonably relocate within the country to avoid gang-related harm, and that country conditions did not compel a finding that torture would occur. Second, the court rejected Quintanilla's argument that Salvadoran police would acquiesce to torture by gang members, noting that police had investigated gang-related crimes and that the government was actively working to control criminal gangs.

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

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that Quintanilla faced no reasonable likelihood of torture if removed to El Salvador
Whether Quintanilla demonstrated that Salvadoran authorities would acquiesce in torture by gang members
Whether internal relocation was a viable alternative to avoid gang-related harm

Procedural posture

Quintanilla petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his Convention Against Torture deferral application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Jose Darwin Quintanilla (“Quintanilla”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

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

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIAs determination that Quintanilla did not establish a reasonable likelihood of torture if removed to El Salvador. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015). The alleged reasons for the beatings Quintanilla suffered in his youth—his refusal to join a gang and suspicion that he was a gang member—do not suggest that his prior assailants have any motive to torture him if he returns to El Salvador, especially considering that Quintanilla lived with his father unharmed for some time. The BIA also reasonably found Quintanilla can relocate to avoid harm by the gangs and that the country conditions do not compel the conclusion that Quintanilla would be tortured for refusing to join the gangs and living in El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)

2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIAs determination that Quintanilla did not establish that the police would acquiesce to any inflicted torture by gang members. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014). The police investigated the murder by gang members of Quintanillas uncle and, generally, police and the Salvadoran government are attempting to control the criminal gangs in El Salvador. Accordingly, Quintanilla has not carried his burden of showing that the government would torture him or acquiesce in his torture.

PETITION DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we restate only those necessary to explain our decision.