584 F. App'x 322
9th Cir.2014Background
- Petitioner Javier Reyes-Corado is a Guatemalan national who fears being killed by paternal cousins if returned to Guatemala, due to a long‑running family feud originating between his father Noe and uncle Simon.
- Mr. Reyes left Guatemala before his father Noe was killed; the family dispute includes an earlier kidnapping (and presumed death) of uncle Simon during the civil war era.
- Mr. Reyes applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the IJ and BIA denied relief and the BIA later issued a second decision on remand.
- The agencies found no government acquiescence or awareness linking the family deaths to a feud, noting family members did not report the feud to police and the deaths could be attributed to other causes/timing (e.g., civil war era kidnapping).
- The BIA also found no past persecution before Mr. Reyes’s departure and concluded internal relocation within Guatemala was reasonable; Mr. Reyes offered only speculation (size of country, family location) and no evidence relocation would be discovered or unsafe.
- The court denied Mr. Reyes’s constitutional challenge to denial of voluntary departure, citing Garfias‑Rodriguez en banc precedent, and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAT relief is available given alleged family‑based torture/killings | Reyes: CAT applies because Guatemalan officials would acquiesce to family violence | Govt/BIA: No evidence officials were aware or willfully blind to family‑based killings | Denied—substantial evidence supports no government acquiescence |
| Whether asylum/withholding available because government unable/unwilling to control private actors | Reyes: need not show government awareness; government inability/unwillingness established by risk from cousins | Govt/BIA: Government must be aware of persecution; no such awareness shown here | Denied—government awareness required and lacking |
| Whether Reyes established past persecution or eligibility for asylum/withholding | Reyes: family feud places him at risk; cites killings of relatives | Govt/BIA: No threats before his departure; father killed after he left; no past persecution shown | Denied—no past persecution; burden shifts to show relocation unreasonable, which Reyes failed to meet |
| Whether denial of voluntary departure violated constitutional rights for exercising judicial review | Reyes: denial was punitive for seeking judicial relief | Govt/BIA: Decision consistent with regulation and precedent | Denied—court rejects constitutional claim under Garfias‑Rodriguez |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.) (government acquiescence standard in CAT cases)
- Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir.) (awareness and willful blindness concept for official acquiescence)
- Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.) (awareness includes actual knowledge and willful blindness)
- Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.) (asylum/withholding requires persecution by government or forces government cannot control)
- Castro‑Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (government awareness necessary to show inability/unwillingness to control private violence)
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (applicant must present evidence, not speculation)
- Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653 (9th Cir.) (standard for assessing reasonableness of internal relocation)
- Garfias‑Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir.) (en banc; addressed denial of voluntary departure claims)
- Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858 (9th Cir.) (deference to BIA statutory interpretation)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (deference to reasonable agency interpretation)