Francisco Guzman-Chicas v. Merrick Garland, 17-72049

Francisco Guzman-Chicas, a Salvadoran former police officer, petitioned for withholding of removal and CAT protection; the BIA denied relief and the Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied the petition.
Guzman-Chicas received two anonymous threatening notes in El Salvador, but no physical harm resulted from those threats.
He relocated with his family to a rural town with minimal gang activity, continued working as a police officer there, and received no further threats.
The IJ did not explicitly solicit additional corroborating evidence; the BIA nonetheless assumed the respondent’s claims were corroborated but concluded relocation was feasible.
For CAT relief, Guzman-Chicas produced no evidence he was ever tortured, no evidence the government would acquiesce to torture, and his expert affidavit did not compel a contrary finding.
Guzman-Chicas made only a passing reference to asylum and thus abandoned that claim on review.

Issue	Guzman-Chicas' Argument	Government/BIA Argument	Held
Whether threats constituted past persecution	Two anonymous threatening notes show past persecution	Notes were unfulfilled and caused no harm; insufficient for persecution	Denied — threats alone insufficient for past persecution
Whether he has a well-founded fear of future persecution	Continued risk despite relocation; corroboration needed	He safely relocated within El Salvador to a rural area with minimal gang activity	Denied — internal relocation was reasonable and effective
Whether IJ’s failure to seek corroboration prejudiced applicant	IJ erred by not giving notice/opportunity to submit corroboration	BIA assumed claims were corroborated and still found relocation reasonable	Denied — even with assumed corroboration relief would be denied
Whether CAT protection is warranted	Country conditions/ expert affidavit show risk of torture and government acquiescence	No evidence he was tortured, could relocate safely, and no proof of government acquiescence	Denied — record lacks proof of torture or governmental acquiescence

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence review standard for BIA denials)
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements for withholding of removal)
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats generally do not constitute persecution)
Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (anonymous threatening notes do not establish reasonable expectation of persecution)
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2019) (applicant does not have well-founded fear if reasonable internal relocation is available)
Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2005) (successful internal relocation is evidence relocation is feasible)
Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1992) (review limited to the BIA’s decision)
Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (CAT requires showing likelihood of torture and government acquiescence)