Coronado Campos-Merino v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1401
CORONADO ALFREDO CAMPOS-MERINO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 19, 2012 Decided: October 30, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Nehal H. Kamani, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Coronado Alfredo Campos-Merino, a native and citizen
of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the
reasons that follow, we deny the petition for review.
Campos-Merino first contends that the immigration
judge erred in finding that he was ineligible for withholding of
removal because he failed to establish a nexus between one of
the five statutorily enumerated protected grounds and his past
mistreatment — a death threat levied by gang members — and his
fear of future harm by the same gang. On appeal, the Board
discerned no clear error in this finding. We review this
determination for substantial evidence. I.N.S. v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Agbornchong v. Holder, 383
F. App’x 319, 322-23 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (unpublished
after argument).
Withholding of removal is mandatory for an alien who
establishes, by a clear probability, that his “life or freedom
would be threatened . . . because of [his] race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion,” if removed to his home country. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361,
2
370 (4th Cir. 2004). A “clear probability” means “that it is
more likely than not that the alien would be subject to
persecution.” I.N.S. v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984).
“Persecution occurs ‘on account of’ a protected ground if that
ground serves as ‘at least one central reason for’ the feared
persecution.” Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 127
(4th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006)). A
central reason is one that is more than “‘incidental,
tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for
harm.’” Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164 (4th
Cir. 2009) (quoting In re J-B-N-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 (BIA
2007)).
We have reviewed the record and readily conclude that
substantial evidence supports the finding that Campos-Merino
failed to show that a protected ground was “one central reason”
for the gang’s death threat or the future harm Campos-Merino
fears would befall him and his family if they returned to El
Salvador. Rather, the record evidence supports the immigration
judge’s determination that the central reason for the death
threat, as well as the gang’s ongoing interest in Campos-
Merino’s whereabouts, was to ensure that Campos-Merino did not
inform the police of the gang murder that he witnessed. We
therefore uphold the denial of withholding of removal. Accord
Vasquez v. I.N.S., 177 F.3d 62, 65 (1st Cir. 1999) (upholding
3
ruling that petitioners did not establish nexus between well-
founded fear of future persecution and an imputed anti-guerilla,
pro-government political opinion, because substantial evidence
supported determination that threats and assault were motivated
by desire to prevent lead petitioner from giving the police
information regarding the guerillas’ assassination).
We also uphold the immigration judge’s decision,
affirmed by the Board, to deny relief under the Convention
Against Torture. Substantial evidence supports the ruling that
Campos-Merino failed to establish that it is more likely than
not that he would be tortured if removed to El Salvador at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of the
Salvadoran government. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(1), (2),
1208.18 (2012). Campos-Merino did not contend that the
Salvadoran government has any interest in subjecting him to
torture. And the record, which contains two Department of State
reports that discuss the government’s ongoing efforts to combat
gang violence, simply does not compel the conclusion that the
gang operates with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government
or even that the government turns a blind eye to the gang’s
criminal activities. See Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, 449-50
(4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that a State Department report
explaining that “the Salvadoran government does not have a
policy or practice of refusing assistance to persons who receive
4
threats or are otherwise victims of gang violence” is
substantial evidence (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
5