Aristides Soto Mansilla v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 14 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARISTIDES SOTO MANSILLA, No. 13-74272
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-586-816
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 15, 2016
San Francisco, California
Submission Withdrawn and Deferred April 22, 2016
Resubmitted November 14, 2016
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Aristedes Soto Mansilla (“Soto”) petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for special rule
cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Relief Act (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we
deny the petition.
Relief under NACARA is unavailable to any applicant who has “incited,
assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a). Soto told
an immigration officer that as a sergeant in the Guatemalan military, he informed
on suspected guerillas, knowing that they would likely be tortured. After guerillas
were identified, the military would send a special G-2 intelligence team, who
would take the suspected guerillas to the base to be investigated and tortured. He
identified at least some of the suspected guerillas because they “had fliers.” This
evidence indicates that Soto was both personally involved in and purposefully
assisted persecution on account of political opinion, Miranda Alvarado v.
Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2006), shifting the burden to him to prove
that he was not a persecutor, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). Soto failed to carry that
burden. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Soto
assisted in persecution and was ineligible for NACARA special rule cancellation of
removal.
DENIED.