Rodriguez v. Lynch, 654 F. App'x 498

Jose Amado Rodriguez, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. without valid documents in 2010 and conceded removability.
He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming past persecution and fear of future persecution because of his membership in the ARENA political party.
He testified about two incidents in El Salvador (nearly a year apart): an FMLN-affiliated group threw stones at his truck and threatened to push him off a mountain; later his parked truck was vandalized and masked attackers left an FMLN flag and threatened to kill him.
Rodriguez reported the incidents to the ARENA mayor, who advised him to leave the country; Rodriguez did not notify police, asserting they were corrupt and would not help.
The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT protection; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Rodriguez appealed to the First Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rodriguez suffered past persecution	His two threatening incidents and vandalism by FMLN supporters constituted persecution on account of political opinion	Incidents were isolated, not sufficiently severe, and did not show government inability/unwillingness to control perpetrators	Court held incidents did not rise to level of persecution; substantial evidence supports denial
Whether the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect him	Mayor’s admonition and general corruption meant government would not protect him	Rodriguez never sought police protection; mere speculation of police nonresponse is insufficient	Court held record did not compel conclusion government was unable/unwilling to protect
Whether he has an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution	Fear is credible given threats and political affiliation	Country conditions evidence before the IJ (Dept. of State report) did not show ongoing political killings or disappearances; record lacked evidence of reasonable future risk	Court held he failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution
Eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief	(Withholding) Same factual basis as asylum; (CAT) risk of torture if returned	Withholding requires higher standard; petitioner made no appellate argument on CAT	Court held asylum failure defeats withholding claim; CAT claim waived for lack of argument

Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2013) (defining refugee and rebuttable presumption from past persecution)
Sinurat v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2008) (persecution must exceed harassment and basic suffering)
Alibeaj v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 188 (1st Cir. 2006) (persecution requires seriousness, regularity, frequency)
Lobo v. Holder, 684 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2012) (credible threats constitute persecution only when they cause significant suffering or harm)
Anacassus v. Holder, 602 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2010) (examples of severe, systematic harm constituting persecution)
Sunarto Ang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2013) (appellate review limited to record and standard for government protection showing)
Silva v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (subjective and objective components of fear for asylum)
Shah v. Holder, 758 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2014) (review is limited to the record before the agency)