Escobar Telles v. Lynch, 639 F. App'x 658

Victor Manolo Escobar Telles, a Guatemalan national, was previously removed from the U.S. in 2008 after prior convictions for sexual and other offenses; he reentered the U.S. without permission later that year.
After an arrest in 2014, DHS reinstated his prior removal order and he expressed fear of return; he underwent a reasonable fear screening by an Asylum Officer (AO).
The AO found his testimony not credible and concluded he failed to show a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, citing lack of nexus to a protected ground and speculative gang violence; the AO also noted his failure to report threats or assaults to police.
Escobar Telles requested review by an Immigration Judge (IJ); at the IJ hearing he sought only deferral under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and presented testimony from himself and his sister about past threats, gang violence against family members, and two murdered cousins.
The IJ concurred with the AO, finding insufficient evidence that the Guatemalan government would acquiesce to torture or that petitioner faced a reasonable possibility of torture; petitioner claimed due process error but offered no colorable constitutional claim.
The First Circuit assumed hypothetical jurisdiction but denied the petition for review, holding substantial evidence supported the IJ’s concurrence and rejecting a due process challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review IJ concurrence with AO negative reasonable-fear determination	Court has jurisdiction to review IJ concurrence	Government contends review permitted but urges deferential standard	Court assumed jurisdiction for resolution and bypassed full jurisdictional analysis
Standard of review for IJ concurrence	Substantial evidence review should apply	Government urged Mandel "facially legitimate and bona fide" standard	Court did not decide which standard applies; resolved case under substantial evidence ground
Whether IJ’s concurrence was supported by substantial evidence	Escobar Telles argued AO/IJ erred; presented testimony and family evidence of threats and gang violence	Government argued record showed credibility issues, lack of reporting, and generalized crime risk without government acquiescence	Court held substantial evidence supports IJ’s concurrence that petitioner failed to show a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture
Due process claim	Escobar Telles argued IJ failed to consider evidence/violated due process	Government argued IJ heard testimony and considered evidence; no procedural defect	Court found no colorable due process claim; IJ considered totality of evidence and no violation occurred

Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (courts may assume jurisdiction and decide merits when appropriate)
Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New Eng., Inc., 706 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (explains bypassing jurisdictional issues when merits dispositive)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (Executive exclusion upheld when based on a facially legitimate and bona fide reason)
Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment) (applies Mandel framework in the consular-exclusion context)
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (applies deference to political branches on immigration classifications)
Telyatitskiy v. Holder, 628 F.3d 628 (1st Cir. 2011) (an IJ need not recite every piece of evidence; consideration of totality suffices)