Dario Suarez-Valenzuela v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8318
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Peruvian citizen Suarez-Valenzuela entered the U.S. illegally in 1999 after prior Peru-based conflict; he was convicted of petit larceny and received an Administrative Order of Removal.
- He expressed fear of torture if returned to Peru and sought CAT protection; the immigration judge granted withholding of removal, but the BIA reversed.
- Past incident: Suarez-Valenzuela and an associate threatened a TV show participant; a police officer allegedly involved in the threat assaulted him, and Luis later tortured him and was prosecuted.
- Suarez-Valenzuela testified that Luis, a former police officer, posed continuing threats and that Peru’s national identity database could enable officials to locate him; relocation within Peru was argued as a feasible option.
- The BIA relied on country conditions, past torture, and the feasibility of relocation, concluding it was not more likely than not that the government would acquiesce to torture if he returned; Suarez-Valenzuela was removed to Peru; court reviews for substantial evidence and standards of acquiescence.
- Relocation argument was waived for failure to raise in opening brief; court affirmed denial of CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA used the correct acquiescence standard | Suarez-Valenzuela argues BIA used willful acceptance (wrong) rather than willful blindness. | BIA applied willful blindness, consistent with controlling law. | BIA applied willful blindness; remand unnecessary. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports BIA’s denial of CAT relief | Past torture and country conditions should support relief. | Country conditions improved; past torture insufficient with relocation options. | Substantial evidence supports denial. |
| Whether the BIA properly considered country conditions evidence | COMISEDH report should be weighed against State Dept. report; Amilcar-Orellana distinguishable. | State Dept. report is highly probative; Amilcar-Orellana not controlling here. | BIA did not err in relying on State Department report. |
| Whether the BIA properly concluded Luis was a rogue officer and not acting under government policy | Past torture by Luis indicates government complicity. | Luis acted as a rogue officer; not representative of official policy. | BIA’s rogue-officer finding supported by record. |
| Whether Suarez-Valenzuela waived relocation argument | Relocation within Peru was not fully addressed in opening brief. | Waiver due to failure to raise argument in opening brief. | Relocation argument waived; relief denied on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1991) (standard for fear of persecution; burden and standard of proof)
- Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2003) (acquiescence includes willful blindness)
- Amilcar-Orellana v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2008) (consideration of government action to reduce corruption outside direct torture context)
- Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151 (5th Cir. 2010) (disfavors willful acceptance standard; supports acquiescence via awareness or willful blindness)
- Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538 (4th Cir. 1999) (State Dept. reports as probative on country conditions)