Ramirez v. Gonzales , 192 F. App'x 7 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                    Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
    Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 05-2723
    SAÚL RAMÍREZ,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
    THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    Before
    Boudin, Chief Judge,
    Torruella, Circuit Judge,
    and Dyk,* Circuit Judge.
    Jeff Ross and Ross & Associates on brief for petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
    Greg Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration
    Litigation, and Siu P. Wong, Department of Justice, Civil Division,
    Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
    August 22, 2006
    *
    Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
    Per Curiam.   Saul Ramirez, a citizen of Guatemala, was
    born in 1967 in the region of Jalapa, Guatemala.           His father was a
    military commissioner in San Pedro Pinola performing duties on
    behalf of the army.        According to Ramirez, this resulted in
    guerrillas targeting the family; specifically, he says that in the
    early and mid-1980s, his uncle and then a cousin were murdered
    allegedly by guerrillas; his father received death threats; and
    guerrillas sprayed his house with bullets, killing a neighbor.
    Shortly after this last killing in 1987, Ramirez traveled
    to the United States, entering illegally.              In 1996, Ramirez was
    convicted of several crimes, including assault and battery by a
    dangerous weapon.    In 2003, he was ordered removed under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1182
    (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and then sought withholding of removal on
    grounds of threatened political persecution, 
    id.
     § 1231(b)(3), and
    under the Convention Against Torture, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16
    (c).
    Following   a   hearing   in   2004,   relief    was    denied   and,     after
    exhausting his remedies before the Board of Immigration Appeals,
    Ramirez sought review in this court.
    Because the Board affirmed summarily, we review the
    decision of the Immigration Judge directly, Katebi v. Ashcroft, 
    396 F.3d 463
    , 465-66 (1st Cir. 2005), and in matters such as this,
    "administrative     findings   of   fact   are   conclusive      unless    any
    reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
    -2-
    contrary." 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(B); Estrada-Canales v. Gonzales,
    
    437 F.3d 208
    , 215 (1st Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence standard).
    The IJ, without questioning Ramirez' credibility, found
    that   Ramirez    had   established    neither       past   persecution     nor   a
    reasonable basis for fear of future persecution.                   We bypass the
    former finding, which depends importantly on how far the threats to
    his father and the violence against other family members (two
    deaths and the attack on the house) can be regarded as creating a
    threat to Ramirez himself that would be classed as political
    persecution.
    Even if past persecution were assumed to have occurred in
    the 1980s, this would do no more than create a presumption of
    future persecution that the government could overcome by showing
    that at the present time no objective basis exists for such a
    threat.    
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
    (b)(1).        The    IJ   found   that   the
    government had so proved, relying both upon facts pertinent to
    Ramirez and upon the State Department's 2001 Country Report on
    Human Rights Practices for Guatemala.            We agree that substantial
    evidence clearly supports the IJ's determination.
    According to the country report, peace accords were
    signed in 1996 between the government and the guerrillas; a party
    based on the former guerrilla movement won seats in the legislature
    in 1999; and although progress is halting, the country report says
    that   there     were     no   indications      of    politically        motivated
    -3-
    disappearances or guerrilla violence in the period reported upon.
    Similar    conclusions       were    reached       in     other   cases   involving
    Guatemala.       See Palma-Mazariegos v. Gonzales, 
    428 F.3d 30
    , 35-36
    (1st Cir. 2005); Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 
    398 F.3d 120
    , 125
    (1st Cir. 2005); Quevedo v. Ashcroft, 
    336 F.3d 39
    , 42 (1st Cir.
    2003).
    Ramirez's father and mother still live in San Pedro
    Pinola,    and    his   brother     and    sister       still   live   elsewhere   in
    Guatemala, all apparently unmolested.               See Aguilar-Solis v. INS,
    
    168 F.3d 565
    , 573 (1st Cir. 1999).              Ramirez could not say when his
    father    last    received   a    threat    from    the     guerrillas;    the   last
    incident he cites in his testimony occurred in 1987.                       Although
    Ramirez alleged that two men were recently killed in his village by
    guerrillas, he knew nothing about the circumstances of their deaths
    beyond the village gossip shared with him by his mother (which did
    not suggest any specific targeting of Ramirez's family).
    In sum, the IJ agreed that some level of politically
    motivated violence continues in Guatemala but found no objective
    basis for believing that Ramirez was a target, and the record
    supports that determination. As to Ramirez' alternative ground for
    relief, the IJ found "absolutely no evidence" that Ramirez would be
    subjected to torture if he were to return to Guatemala.                            The
    petition for review must be denied.
    It is so ordered.
    -4-