Galvez-Urias v. Ashcroft

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________
No. 00-60474
(Summary Calendar)
_______________________________
MARIO GALVEZ-URIAS,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________
Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A74 636 334)
_________________________________________________
February 14, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Petitioner Mario Galvez-Urias (“Galvez”) petitions for us to
review a final deportation order entered by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Having reviewed the facts that form
the basis for Galvez’s request for asylum and having applied the
relevant provisions of law, we affirm the BIA’s order and dismiss
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
Galvez’s petition.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Galvez arrived without inspection in the United States in
December 1989, expecting that he would not stay long. He had fled
his native El Salvador in fear that he would be harmed by members
of the Salvadoran insurgent group Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front (“FMLN”). Galvez, who worked on his family’s
farm, was kidnaped by the FMLN in 1987 and forced to do menial
work, such as cooking, hauling, and begging for food. The rebels
did not physically harm Galvez, who testified that he was abducted
because his father would not give them food. After six months,
Galvez was able to escape from the FMLN camp and return to the
family farm.
About a month after his return, Galvez heard that the FMLN was
looking for him, so he went to stay with a friend. Thereafter, the
guerrillas returned to Galvez’s father’s house, looking for Galvez
and seeking food. When his father again refused to provide food,
he was shot and killed. Galvez stayed for a few days with a
brother and then a cousin, both of whom lived in the same small
town where the family farm was located, Canton Las Tavlas.
According to Galvez, both the brother and the cousin were
subsequently shot to death by the FMLN in separate incidents.
Galvez testified that the cousin found a note near the brother’s
2
body warning that Galvez, too, would be killed if he did not return
to the guerrillas voluntarily.
Galvez fled to another town in a different part of El
Salvador, where he remained for more than a year before returning
to Canton Las Tavlas to join a group being organized to protect
local farmers’ crops. On learning that his cousin had been killed,
however, Galvez, then 28, fled for the United States, where some of
his relatives lived. Since his arrival in this country, Galvez has
been in contact with his four children, who remain in El Salvador.
The children have urged him to stay in the United States, he
testified, and told him that the guerrillas who abducted him in
1987 continue to look for him at the family home.
In deportation proceedings brought by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 1996, Galvez conceded his deportability
but applied for asylum pursuant to § 208(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.1 He appeared before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
in May 1997. The IJ found him generally credible, but concluded
that Galvez had failed to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution if he returned to El Salvador.
The IJ wrote that “[i]t has been at least seven years since the
respondent has been in El Salvador, and his testimony based on
reports of his family that the same people who abducted him in 1987
are still looking for him, are simply unbelievable especially since
1
8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(a). Galvez also requested withholding
of deportation, but does not appeal its denial.
3
they’re unsupported by any objective evidence.” The IJ noted that
Galvez was not a prominent political figure. The IJ also relied on
a U.S. State Department country report on El Salvador, which
indicated that conditions have improved and political violence has
declined since the 1992 signing of peace accords ended a twelve-
year civil war, and that persons fearing harm from recidivous
guerrillas had the option of relocating elsewhere within El
Salvador. The IJ denied Galvez’s application for asylum, but found
him to be a person of good moral character and granted his request
for voluntary departure.
Galvez appealed to the BIA. It affirmed the immigration
judge, agreeing that Galvez had failed to demonstrate that he
suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future
persecution in El Salvador on the basis of any of the statutory
grounds for asylum: race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.2 The Board wrote
that Galvez’s claim that he still has reason to fear harm from the
former guerrillas “is not supported by the country conditions
information in the record, which states that the civil war has
ended and that former guerrillas have been integrated in to
political life.” Galvez timely perfected this appeal.
II.
2
See 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 1158(a); 1253(h).
4
ANALYSIS
We review factual findings of the BIA to determine if they are
supported by substantial evidence in the record.3 We will reverse
only when the evidence is “‘so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’”4
The well-founded fear of persecution standard requires a
subjectively genuine fear of persecution that is objectively
reasonable.5
Galvez argues that the Board erred in failing to consider the
cumulative impact of his personal experiences, which establish past
persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution based on
a political opinion imputed to him by the guerrillas.
Specifically, Galvez argues that members of the FMLN believe that
he is politically opposed to them and want to punish him for
fleeing their camp; and he remains in fear of his life. He says
that the murders of his father and brother are evidence of this
persecution. In addition, Galvez expresses fear of persecution
from the Salvadoran military based on his past contact with the
FMLN rebels.
We are sympathetic to the traumas Galvez suffered in his
homeland; however, the highly deferential standard of review
3
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
4
Id. (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992)).
5
Id. at 304.
5
established by the Supreme Court in INS v. Elias-Zacarias6 dictates
the result in this case. We find that the BIA’s factual findings
are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and that
Galvez’s evidence of the likelihood of persecution on his return to
El Salvador under the current conditions is not adequately
compelling to warrant reversal. In other words, his subjective
fear of persecution is genuine but it is not objectively reasonable
under today’s conditions.
Two considerations in particular support this conclusion.
First, the Supreme Court has held that coercive conscription by a
guerrilla group is not the automatic equivalent of persecution
based on political opinion.7 Second, State Department evidence
shows that conditions in El Salvador have improved substantially in
the years since Galvez left. Based on that evidence, the BIA
concluded that Galvez in particular should be able to live without
fear of political persecution either in his hometown or in another
region of El Salvador. We do not see in this record evidence “‘so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’”8
6
502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).
7
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 482; see also Rivas-Martinez
v. INS, 997 F.2d 1143, 1146-47 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he Court
requires the alien to show that he refused to participate for his
own political reasons.”).
8
Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 302 (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. at 481).
6
III.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the BIA
and DISMISS the petition of Galvez-Urias.
AFFIRMED; petition DISMISSED.
7