Rodriguez-Villar v. Barr, 930 F.3d 24

Background

Rodríguez-Villar, a Dominican national, hosted Dominican Revolutionary Party (PRD) meetings at his supermarket in 2011 and began receiving threats from members of the governing Dominican Liberation Party (PLD).
Over ~19 months he experienced escalating incidents: threatening phone calls, two home invasions with threatening messages, theft, and a beating by two men who warned harm to him and his family if he continued PRD activity.
He reported incidents to police; they demanded payment and took no effective action. After the beating he stopped hosting meetings and relocated his family to the U.S.; the threats ceased once he ceased political activity.
He entered the U.S. in 2012, sought protection, was found to have credible fear, and applied for withholding of removal and CAT protection in removal proceedings; IJ and BIA denied relief despite crediting his testimony; this petition for review followed.
The agency found no past persecution and no likelihood of future persecution, in part because threats ceased after he stopped political activity; the court found the agency erred by both overlooking and misusing key evidence.

Issues

Issue	Rodríguez-Villar's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether past mistreatment constituted "past persecution" supporting a rebuttable presumption of future persecution	The pattern of escalating threats, break-ins, thefts, and a beating with threats to his family constituted past persecution on account of political opinion	Incidents were harassment/isolated and did not rise to persecution	Agency erred: record shows a pattern and the agency failed to adequately explain why it was not persecution; remand required
Whether there is an independent likelihood of future persecution	Ceasing political activity because of credible threats demonstrates the persecutors' ability and intent, supporting likelihood of future persecution if returned	The absence of subsequent threats after he stopped political activity and his lengthy post-attack residence in DR weigh against future risk	Agency erred: it illogically used effective chilling of activity as evidence against future risk; remand required
Whether the final verbal warning amounted to a credible death threat requiring specific consideration	A threat that his family would be harmed was a credible death threat and should be assessed as such	Government did not dispute it was a death threat in briefing but relied on other factors to deny relief	Agency failed to evaluate whether the threat was a credible death threat; remand required for proper analysis
Whether petitioner met standard for CAT protection (torture by or with acquiescence of government)	Violence and police acquiescence/inaction could support likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence	Agency concluded insufficient evidence of torture likely by or with government acquiescence	Agency gave conclusory reasoning and failed to explain whether the chilling of activity was improperly used against the claim; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Murillo-Robles v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 88 (1st Cir.) (review of BIA decisions)
Pulisir v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 302 (1st Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard in removal proceedings)
Arévalo-Girón v. Holder, 667 F.3d 79 (1st Cir.) (withholding of removal standard)
Rebenko v. Holder, 693 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (persecution threshold)
Nelson v. I.N.S., 232 F.3d 258 (1st Cir.) (persecution vs. harassment)
Khan v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 573 (1st Cir.) (pattern/prolonged events for past persecution)
Journal v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.) (systematic mistreatment vs. isolated incidents)
Bocova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 257 (1st Cir.) (factors for persecution)
Halo v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.) (agency must articulate reasons clearly)
Gailius v. I.N.S., 147 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.) (agency must address salient record factors)
Sulaiman v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 347 (1st Cir.) (obligation to explain when record favors petitioner)
Lopez de Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213 (1st Cir.) (credible death threats as evidence of persecution)
Un v. Gonzáles, 415 F.3d 205 (1st Cir.) (death threats and persecution analysis)
Sihotang v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 46 (1st Cir.) (agency must fairly appraise record)
Mihaylov v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.) (remand when agency reasoning inadequate)
Sok v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (agency must consider material evidence)
Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir.) (practicing religion underground can be persecution)
Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir.) (silencing by coercion evidences persecution)
Cordero-Trejo v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 482 (1st Cir.) (surviving terror does not negate persecution)
Enwonwu v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.) (remand for insufficiently reasoned CAT analysis)
Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.) (CAT standard)
Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir.) (CAT vs. persecution threshold)