Portillo v. INS ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 8 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MAYRA PORTILLO and AURA
PORTILLO,
Petitioners, No. 97-9572
v. (A72 528 591
A72 530 761)
IMMIGRATION & (Board of Immigration Appeals)
NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , HENRY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
Ms. Mayra and Ms. Aura Portillo-Morales (“Portillo”), natives and citizens
of Guatemala, petition this court to review the final deportation order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or “Board”), denying their requests for
asylum and withholding of deportation. We exercise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
§ 1105a(a), 1
and deny the petition.
A. Background
Mayra and Aura Portillo applied for asylum in September 1994. They
argued they had a well-founded fear of persecution based on their involvement
and that of their family in a literacy group and in the Christian Democratic party.
They testified that in June or July of 1990, as members of a literacy group in
Izabal, Guatemala, they received threats from the G2, a military group. Two
members of their literacy group were kidnapped, one of whom was murdered. In
November, 1990, they relocated to Chiquimula to escape such threats. On the
way there, they were “car-jacked” and again threatened.
Once in Chiquimula, they became involved in the Christian Democratic
Party, organizing and distributing leaflets. They stated they subsequently
received additional threats by phone and letter, and that several relatives had
been threatened, shot, or killed. They fled Guatemala and entered the United
1
Section 1105a was repealed by § 306(b) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-
208, 110 Stat. 3009, which alters the availability, scope, and nature of judicial
review in INS cases. Because petitioners' deportation proceedings commenced
before April 1, 1997, IIRIRA's permanent "new rules" do not apply to this case.
See id. § 309(c)(1). However, IIRIRA's "transitional rules" do apply, because in
this case the agency's final order was filed more than thirty days after IIRIRA's
September 30, 1996 date of enactment. See id. § 309(c)(4). The repeal of §
1105a is not effective in cases such as this one where the transitional rules are in
effect. See id.
2
States in December, 1991.
At their deportation hearing, the Portillos presented testimony from their
sister, Olga, who had been with them in Guatemala and testified to the same
events. They noted that Olga had been granted asylum in a separate proceeding
on February 14, 1995. The Portillos also offered the testimony of Dr. Robert H.
Trudeau, a Guatemalan human rights expert. The Immigration Judge (IJ)
accepted an affidavit from him into evidence but refused to allow him to testify,
stating that because the petitioners and the INS had been disorganized and
inefficient in the presentation of evidence, the IJ would not take more court time
with the case.
In January, 1996, the IJ denied the Portillo sisters' request for asylum. The
IJ questioned the sisters' credibility, noting discrepancies between their initial
applications and their subsequent testimony, discrepancies between the two
sisters' testimony, a lack of corroborative evidence, and that the Christian
Democrats had been in power at the time of the claimed threats, making it
unlikely that the sisters had been persecuted for their party involvement. The
petitioners appealed.
In October, 1997, the BIA affirmed the IJ's orders, agreeing that petitioners
had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution. The BIA found that,
even assuming that petitioners were threatened, the record did not contain
3
sufficient evidence that the source of the threats had been the government; thus,
to be eligible for asylum, petitioners needed to make the alternate showing that
they faced a country-wide threat of persecution. In light of the United States
Department of State's 1995 Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions for
Guatemala stating that “most low-profile victims of localized harassment can
avail themselves of relocation away from the area where they had problems,” see
Certified Administrative Record (“C.A.R.”) at 190, the BIA concluded that the
Portillos had not made the requisite showing. Finally, the BIA found that they
were not prejudiced by the exclusion of their expert's testimony because he would
not have testified that the threat was country-wide, thus the result would have
been the same.
B. Discussion
The asylum process has two steps. First, an alien requesting asylum must
show that “she is a refugee by proving either past 'persecution or a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.'” Nguyen v. INS , 991 F.2d 621, 625
(10th Cir. 1993) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). The petitioner bears the
burden of proving that he is a refugee within the statutory definition. See Rezai
v. INS , 62 F.3d 1286, 1289 (10th Cir.1995). Second, once an alien has
established her refugee status, the Attorney General may apply her discretion in
4
granting asylum. Id.
1. Determination of Refugee Status
Appealing from a BIA decision, petitioners face a heavy burden. We must
uphold the BIA's decision unless petitioner's evidence was “so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v.
Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 484 (1992). “Even if we disagree with the Board’s
conclusions, we will not reverse if they are supported by substantial evidence and
are substantially reasonable.” Kapcia v. INS , 944 F.2d 702, 707 (10th Cir.
1991).
Here, petitioners argue the BIA erred by finding they had not proved a
well-founded fear of persecution based on the evidence they presented. They
point to their testimony as to their prior involvement in the literacy movement
and with the Christian Democratic Party, their belief that they had been
threatened in Izabal by the military group G2 and that they had been placed on a
government “blacklist,” subsequent threats against them in Chiquimula, their
mother's letter confirming injuries to other family members, and various articles
they submitted on similar human rights violations in Guatemala.
Yet, in order to establish the requisite persecution, petitioners must show
that persecution emanated either (1) from the government or (2) from a non-
governmental agency that the government is unwilling or unable to control. See
5
Bartesaghi-Lay v. INS , 9 F.3d 819, 921 (10th Cir. 1993). If petitioners claim
persecution by a non-governmental agency, they must make an additional
showing that the threat against them is country-wide. See Matter of Acosta , 19
I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985) (“an alien seeking to meet the definition of a refugee
must do more than show a well-founded fear of persecution in a particular place
or abode within a country -- he must show that the threat of persecution exists for
him country-wide”), modified on other grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi , 19 I&N
Dec. 439 (BIA 1987) .
Here, the BIA first found that the petitioners had not presented sufficient
evidence that the source of threats was the government. We cannot say that this
finding was not supported by substantial evidence when (1) the sisters testified
only that they “pretty much knew,” C.A.R. at 85, and “assumed,” C.A.R. at 105,
that the group threatening them was the military group G2 (because of its similar
tactics), and (2) in light of the sisters' own expert's affidavit, on which the BIA
relied, suggesting that threats to literacy workers were not governmental but were
from “local landlords or factory owners” and threats to Christian Democratic
Party workers were from “local level operatives” of a rival political party in
electoral decline. See C.A.R. at 161. Petitioners' argument that their credibility
must be presumed is both unavailing, when we “may not . . . determine the
credibility of witnesses in this review of factual findings,” Refahiyat v. INS , 29
6
F.3d 553, 556 (10th Cir.1994), and superfluous, when the BIA in fact “assum[ed]
the respondents were threatened” as they claimed for purposes of making its
evaluation. C.A.R. at 2.
The BIA then considered, contrary to petitioners' assertions, the second
possibility that they faced persecution from a non-governmental group. It found
that they had not made the requisite additional showing that they faced a country-
wide threat. Again, we cannot say this finding was not supported by substantial
evidence when (1) the Board relied on a March, 1995, United States Department
of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor profile of Guatemala
stating that “most low-profile victims of localized harassment can avail
themselves of relocation away from the area where they had problems,” and (2)
the record does not otherwise show that the petitioners could not have escaped
persecution elsewhere in Guatemala.
Petitioners challenge this decision on several grounds. First, they argue
the BIA improperly applied an elevated standard in its determination of whether
they qualified as refugees. In its decision, however, the Board referred to the
correct “reasonable possibility” of persecution standard articulated in INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987), and petitioners do not cite any
specific language or other evidence indicating that the Board applied any other
improper standard. Their argument essentially amounts to a suggestion that we
7
reweigh the evidence, which we are prohibited from doing. See Refahiyat , 29
F.3d at 556.
Second, petitioners argue that their move to Chiquimula shows they did try
to relocate to escape persecution. This argument fails because evidence of
persecution in two localized areas -- without more -- is insufficient to show they
faced country-wide persecution, as required.
Third, they argue the Board improperly required them to show that they
had a high public profile. This argument is similarly unavailing when the BIA
considered their profile only in terms of determining whether they had
demonstrated they faced the required country-wide threat.
Finally, petitioners contend that they need not show they would be singled
out for persecution because they meet the alternative “pattern or practice”
requirement. An alien need not show “he or she would be singled out
individually for persecution if: (I) [she] establishes that there is a pattern or
practice in his or her country . . . of persecution of a group of persons similarly
situated to the applicant . . .; and (ii) [she] establishes his or her own inclusion in
and identification with such group. . . .” 8 C.F.R. 208.13(b)(2)(I)-(ii). However,
as the INS points out, petitioners did not argue this before the IJ or the BIA, and
they are thus foreclosed from raising it now for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. See Rivera-Zurita v. INS , 946 F.2d 118, 120 n. 2 (10th Cir.1991).
8
Thus, we conclude that the BIA's finding that petitioners did not show that they
qualified as refugees was supported by substantial evidence.
2. Inconsistent Grant of Asylum
Petitioners also challenge the BIA's denial of asylum to Mayra and Aura
Portillo because it was inconsistent with its prior grant of asylum to their sister,
Olga Portillo, on essentially the same facts. They cite Masonry Masters, Inc. v.
Thornburgh for the proposition that the INS cannot “make simultaneously
inconsistent decisions without providing some explanation for the inconsistency.”
742 F. Supp. 682, 687 (D.D.C. 1990); see also Omni Packaging, Inc. v. INS , 733
F. Supp. 500 (D.P.R. 1990).
We review the Attorney General's decision as to whether to grant asylum
under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. Because petitioners failed to satisfy
their factual burden regarding anticipated persecution, however, we need not
address the discretionary refusal of asylum from the alleged persecution. See
Castaneda v. INS , 23 F.3d 1576, 1578 (10th Cir. 1994) .
Further, as the INS points out, even were we to consider the Board's
discretionary decision, unlike the identical visa petitions considered
simultaneously in Masonry Masters , here the record is not sufficiently complete
as to Olga's asylum application to determine whether it was identical to Mayra
and Aura's, nor were their asylum requests considered simultaneously.
9
Additionally, having had evidence of Olga's asylum grant before them, both the
INS and the BIA issued thorough opinions explaining their adverse decisions,
thus satisfying the explanatory requirement articulated in Masonry Masters .
Nevertheless, we pause to make clear that we do find this inconsistency
troubling. See Karapetian v. INS , 162 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The
inconsistency the agency has shown -- issuing diametrically opposed judgments
to members of the same family, all of whom sought asylum on the same . . . basis,
and the same facts -- is very troublesome to us . . . .”). Unfortunately, like the
Seventh Circuit in Karapetian , “we do not see where, under the highly deferential
standard of review that applies to INS cases, we can take this fact into account.”
Id. We suggest that the Board should also find this inconsistency seriously
troubling, and note that it might reconsider or reopen the Portillos’ case on its
own initiative, see 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a), or upon a proper motion. Id. at § 3.2(c)(3).
See also Karapetian , 162 F.3d at 937 ( “We note that a principal mission of the
Board of Immigration Appeals is to ensure as uniform an interpretation and
application of this country’s immigration laws as possible.” (parenthetically
quoting In re Cerna , 20 I & N Dec. 399, 405 (BIA 1991))).
3. Exclusion of Expert Testimony
Finally, the Portillos contend that the district court erred in excluding the
testimony of their expert witness, Dr. Trudeau. Aliens in deportation hearings
10
are entitled to a “full and fair hearing that comports with due process.” Kapcia ,
944 F.2d at 705. To establish a due process violation, an alien must show that an
error resulted in prejudice “implicat[ing] the fundamental fairness of the
hearing.” Michelson v. INS , 897 F.2d 465, 468 (10th Cir. 1990) . Here, although the
IJ’s exclusion of the testimony may have been questionable, there was no such
fundamental error when the petitioners were permitted to submit as extensive an
affidavit from Dr. Trudeau as they wished, and the only error they identify is that
had he been permitted to testify, he “could have clarified points that were not
brought out in his affidavit.” Aplt. Br. at 18.
C. Conclusion
Thus, after careful review of the administrative record, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that petitioners have not
established eligibility for asylum, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to
grant asylum to Mayra and Aura Portillo after having granted asylum to their
sister, Olga Portillo, and there was no due process violation in excluding their
expert's testimony when he was allowed to submit an affidavit. Thus, the petition
for review is DENIED.
Entered for the Court,
11
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
12