Adiel Rivera-Trinidad v. Merrick Garland
20-71463
| 9th Cir. | Jul 20, 2021Background:
- Rivera-Trinidad, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in Oct 2016; DHS issued a Notice to Appear in Nov 2016 and charged removability.
- He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an IJ denied relief in Mar 2018 and the BIA dismissed his appeal.
- Rivera-Trinidad claimed membership in a particular social group: "close family members of a police officer killed by gang members in El Salvador, who oppose criminal gangs," and advanced additional PSGs (family of kidnapping victims; Salvadorans opposing gangs or corruption).
- The BIA found key facts undermined his fear: immediate relatives and police-officer cousins in El Salvador were unharmed, and Rivera-Trinidad lived unthreatened in El Salvador for three years after his brother’s death; other cousin deaths were unrelated.
- The BIA also found Rivera-Trinidad failed to show a likelihood of torture with government acquiescence and rejected a due-process claim that the IJ/BIA ignored evidence.
- The Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to an unexhausted political-opinion claim, and otherwise denied the petition—concluding substantial evidence supported the BIA’s rulings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / exhaustion (political opinion claim) | Rivera-Trinidad argued he held a political opinion exposing him to harm | DHS: he failed to exhaust the political-opinion claim before the BIA | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; claim not exhausted |
| PSG — close family of a police officer killed by gangs | He asserted membership and an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution | DHS: relatives in El Salvador are unharmed; he lived unharmed for years; threats not shown | Denied asylum/withholding; substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ findings |
| Other PSGs (family of kidnapping victims; opponents of gangs/corruption) | Claimed these groups merit protection | DHS: no evidence of family kidnappings; proposed groups not sufficiently particular or socially distinct | Denied; BIA correctly found groups unsupported or not cognizable |
| CAT — torture with government acquiescence | Argued he would more likely than not be tortured if returned | DHS: no showing Salvadoran government would acquiesce to torture | Denied; substantial evidence that government acquiescence not shown |
| Due process — IJ/BIA ignored evidence | Claimed procedural unfairness prevented presentation of case | DHS: record shows no material evidence ignored; no prejudice shown | Denied; petitioner failed to identify ignored evidence or resulting prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016) (review both IJ and BIA when BIA supplements IJ reasoning)
- Jie Shi Liu v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2018) (asylum factual review is highly deferential)
- Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2020) (agency factual findings are conclusive unless compelled otherwise)
- I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (reversal under substantial-evidence standard requires evidence that compels contrary conclusion)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requirement limits judicial review jurisdiction)
- J.R. v. Barr, 975 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2020) (applicant must show objectively reasonable well-founded fear)
- Lacsina Pangilinan v. Holder, 568 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2009) (due-process claim requires showing fundamental unfairness and prejudice)