Case Information
*1 Before: REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges and MOLLOY, [***] Senior District Judge.
Regor Aguilar, a citizen of the Philippines, petitions this court for review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying Aguilar’s, and
*2
derivatively his wife Maria’s, applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA
found that Aguilar was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on
his past participation in persecution in the Philippines, and denied his application
for deferral of removal because he failed to demonstrate that it is “more likely than
not” he will be tortured upon return. We review these findings for substantial
evidence,
see Garcia-Milian v. Holder
,
1. A non-citizen is barred from asylum relief and withholding of removal if
he “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any
person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(i) (asylum),
1231(b)(3)(B)(i) (withholding of removal). It is not necessary for a petitioner to be
the actual “trigger-pull[er]” for the persecutor bar to apply.
Miranda Alvarado v.
Gonzales
,
The finding that Aguilar participated in persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Aguilar testified that he worked from 1998 to 2001 as a surveillance agent for a law enforcement task force in the Philippines that frequently targeted rival political figures—including, at various times, the President, Vice President, members of the Philippine Congress, and members of the press. Aguilar maintains that he did not know the extent of the task force’s illegal activities while working for it, but this contention is belied by his own testimony before the Immigration Judge. Aguilar testified that he knew, as early as 1998, that one of the targets of his surveillance disappeared and is presumed dead. He further testified that his superiors informed him that other members of the task force relied on his surveillance to abduct and murder another political figure in 2000. On at least two occasions Aguilar also heard his superiors order task force members to torture someone whom the task force had abducted. This level of *4 knowledge and participation establishes the degree of “individual accountability” required to affirm the BIA’s determination. [1]
2. Under CAT, even those non-citizens ineligible for asylum and
withholding of removal qualify for deferral of removal if they establish a
“likelihood of torture upon return.”
Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey
,
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Aguilar’s deferral of
removal claim. First, Aguilar conceded during his testimony that he was never
mistreated or threatened by the Philippine government before or after the
termination of his employment. Aguilar has received what he considers to be three
threats since he moved to the United States, but he admits that none of those threats
*5
(the last of which occurred in 2004) can be linked to Philippine officials. Second,
Aguilar failed to demonstrate that the Philippine government would acquiesce to
private violence directed at him. That the Philippine government has not accepted
Aguilar’s offers to testify in exchange for protection, does not establish that it
would knowingly acquiesce to any harm that might befall him upon his return.
See
Garcia-Milian
,
PETITION DENIED.
Notes
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
[***] The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
[1] Aguilar also argues that he worked for the task force under duress. The
government maintains that Aguilar has failed to exhaust this argument before the
BIA.
See Rendon v. Mukasey
,