Moris Quiroz Parada v. Jefferson Sessions, III
902 F.3d 901
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Quiroz Parada, Salvadoran national, fled to the U.S. in 1991 after his family suffered targeted violence by FMLN guerrillas (brother murdered, repeated home invasions, kidnapping/forced conscription attempts, beatings rendering him unconscious).
- After the civil war, descendants of FMLN guerrillas became MS gang members who continued to threaten and attack the family; father received threats in 2000 and died in a suspicious hit-and-run; other family members fled.
- Quiroz Parada applied for asylum and withholding of removal in 1994; lengthy government delays followed—DHS interviewed him in 2007 and the merits hearing did not occur until 2012; the government relied on 2007 country reports at the hearing.
- The IJ found Quiroz Parada credible but denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed. The IJ alternatively concluded that even if past persecution were shown, DHS rebutted the presumption of future persecution based on country reports.
- Ninth Circuit reviews BIA legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence; court evaluated past persecution, nexus, whether the presumption of future persecution was rebutted (changed country conditions/relocation), and CAT eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quiroz Parada suffered past persecution | He suffered murder of brother, neighbor killed as a consequence, multiple home invasions, kidnapping and beatings to unconsciousness, and targeted threats — these constitute persecution | Harms characterized as threats and recruitment attempts not rising to persecution | Court: Evidence compels finding of past persecution; BIA’s contrary characterization unsupported by substantial evidence |
| Nexus — whether persecution was on account of protected ground (family association or imputed political opinion) | Persecutors targeted the family by name because of brother/father’s government/military service; imputed political opinion and family membership are protected grounds | Attempted conscription is not necessarily persecution on protected ground absent motive | Court: Nexus established — family is a particular social group and perpetrators imputed political opinion based on family service; attempted conscription was motivated in part by protected grounds |
| Whether the government rebutted presumption of future persecution (changed country conditions / internal relocation) | DHS failed to show changed conditions; relied on stale 2007 reports and did not account for FMLN’s rise to power in 2009; relocation within El Salvador not safe | DHS relied on 2007 State Dept. reports to show no ongoing threat tied to FMLN/civil-war reprisals and argued changed conditions | Court: Reversed — stale country reports (and failure to update record after long delay) cannot rebut presumption; presumption unrebutted => eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal |
| CAT relief — adequacy of BIA/IJ analysis and government acquiescence | CAT claim should be considered on the merits; record shows danger from MS and evidence of government acquiescence or willful blindness (corruption, security-force abuses) | BIA/IJ held petitioner failed to show torture by public officials or acquiescence | Court: Reversed and remanded — agency failed to consider all relevant evidence and construed acquiescence too narrowly; further consideration required |
Key Cases Cited
- Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (credibility findings and limits on remanding to consider changed country conditions)
- Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2000) (past persecution gives rise to rebuttable presumption of future persecution)
- Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (physical violence qualifies as persecution)
- Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1999) (under pre-REAL ID law, persecution need only be motivated in part by protected ground)
- Tambadou v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2006) (agency reliance on materially outdated country reports cannot rebut presumption)
- Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (current country conditions are vital; stale reports inadequate)
- Gafoor v. INS, 231 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2000) (kidnapping and beating to unconsciousness constitute persecution)
- Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (family harm and imputed political opinion can establish nexus)
- Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (government acquiescence standard does not require actual knowledge; awareness and willful blindness suffice)
- Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency must consider all relevant evidence for CAT claims)