Pedro Machado Alturo v. US Attorney General
716 F.3d 1310
11th Cir.2013Background
- Alturo, a Colombian national, petitions for review of a BIA denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- BIA concluded Alturo was statutorily ineligible due to providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, the AUC, via six annual $300 war tax payments totaling $1,800.
- Alturo argued the payments were to Aguilas Negras (not designated), that AUC was demobilized in 2006, that he could not have known of the terrorist status, that the amount was de minimis, and that payments were made under duress.
- The court applies substantial evidence review for agency factual findings and de novo review for legal questions, deferring to the BIA's statutory construction where permissible.
- The INA's material support bar applies to designated terrorist organizations and has no express duress exception; waivers exist but are discretionary.
- The panel upheld the BIA’s determinations, affirming ineligibility under the material support bar and the alternative merits findings; petition denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does material support bar apply to Alturo's payments? | Alturo argues payments were involuntary and not to a designated terrorist org. | BIA held payments to a designated group constitute material support regardless of duress. | Yes; material support barred. |
| Does demobilization of AUC affect applicability? | Alturo contends AUC no longer designated. | Demobilization after the period of payments does not negate the designation during the relevant period. | No; designation at time of payment controls. |
| Is there a duress/involuntariness exception to the bar? | Alturo asserts payments were under duress. | INA has no duress exception for designated groups; waivers exist but are discretionary. | No duress exception; no automatic relief. |
| Did Alturo establish asylum/withholding on merits? | Alturo claims persecution due to political activities/opinions. | BIA found no past persecution or well-founded fear; no CAT protection shown. | Denied; no substantial evidence of statutory grounds for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhou Hua Zhu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2013) (deference to BIA on statutory construction when statute is silent or ambiguous)
- Assa’ad v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2003) (defer to BIA on permissible statutory construction)
- Barahona v. Holder, 691 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2012) (no duress exception to material support bar; waiver avenue noted)
- Annachamy v. Holder, 686 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2012) (no involuntary/duress exception to material support bar; waiver route discussed)
- Viegas v. Holder, 699 F.3d 798 (4th Cir. 2012) (broad interpretation of material support for designated groups)
- Singh-Kaur v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2004) (material support is broadly defined; deference to BIA interpretation)