ELIZEH P.

URIBE, ESQUIRE
Law Oce of Enrique Aevalo
Mission Street
South Pasadena, CA J
Name: LUNA CAALES, JOSE SAOS
U.b. 6gBtlm60l0J08lt6
Executive Ofce fr I igration Review
soa1o( Iwm|gat|oaxeals
Qeeo(t/eCles
Jf07L@P,&tltrW
0ktLttnk, ngata 220I
OHS/ICE 0 of Chief Counsel LOS
00 S. Ollve Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA J4
PW-J4Z-Z0
Date of this notce: MlZJJ
Enclosed is a copy of the Boa's deision ad orer in the above-rfeence cae.
Enclosure
Pael Members:
Pauley, Roger
Sincerely,
Donna Car
Chief Cler
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
U.S. 6gBM60f0Justce
Eecve OmMIigon Review
Dision of m0Bof Inigion A@b
FUbCm,vs 22W1
File: A094 142 20 - Los Agele, L omia
mr: JOSE SATOS L-CANALES
I RMOVA PROCEEDIGS
APPEA
ON BEHLF OF RESPONDE: Elt P. Urb, Eu
ON BEHAF OF DHS:
CHGE:
Igd Abh
Senior Atorey
Date:
8|88flflI
Notce: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A}i), l&N Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)] -
Psent withou bing NWor paled
APPLICATION: Asyl\; with olding of rmoval; Conveton Aga Tore;
scial rle cacellation of rmoval
Te Dpaent of Homelad Secuit ("DHS'') appals fm a Imigton Judge's
May 13, 2010, deision gtg te rsndent's applicaon fr s-nle ccellaton of rmoval
under seon 203 of the Nicagu Adjusent ad Cental Aerca Relief Act of 1997
(''NACAR'', Pb. L. No. 105-100, tt. D, 111 St. 2193, 2196 (1997), amended by Pub. L. No.
105-139, 111 Stat 26(1997. See also 8 C.F.R. 1240.66 (2007). Te rndent opps te
gad ue u wM te Imigton Judge's deision. Te appal will b disss.1
Te rndent a ntve ad citn of El Savador, dos not dspue t be is rovable fm
te United Sttes by vire of his uaw QMO. Secton 2 l 2(aX6(A)(i) of te Im igton ad
Naonit Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Fuenor, te DHS dos not dispute tat te
rnent is eligble Waply fr scia-rle ccllaon of rmoval. Accrdigly, te isse bfre
u on ap is wheter te Im igtion Judge erd wen he deterined tat te rspndent
stsfes te substtive eligbilit ruirments fr such rlief ad merits it in the exeis of
don.
Te Boa rews a Immigton Judge's @of fact, including fndings Wto te cbit
of tetimony, uder te "clely eroneou" stdad. 8 C.F .R. 1003 .1 ( d)(3)(i). The Boad MV0
queston of law, discrton, ad judget ad all other isues in appls fm deision of
Immigton Judges de novo. 8 C.F.R 1003.l (d)(3)(ii).
Te rndent aso applied fr aylu, witholding of rmoval, prton uder te Conventon
Against Tor, bu the Immigton Judge did not adjudicate thos applicaton. Tu, the
rspndet's eligbilit fr tose of rlief unot bfr u.
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

A094 142 206
Acoring W te OHS, te Immigton Judge sould have fud te rspndent ineligble fr
spia-re cacellaon of rmoval fr terans: ( 1) bause he faile to show tat be is not
"a alien descbd in scton 241(b)(3)B)[(i)] of te Act (rlatig to prcuton of ote)," see
8 C.F.R. 1240.66(a); (2) because WImmigton Judge faled to apply te appropriat pent;
ad (3) bause his tony not crdible. Te OHS also aes tat te Immigaton Judge
should hve dene te rndent's ruest fr spcia-re ccllaion of rmova i te exerise
of dton. 8 C.F.R. 1240.6a). We sl addrs eh of tee aent in W
Secton 241(bX3){B)(i) of te Act 8 U.S.C. 123 l (bX3)(B){i), provides tat a aplict fr
wth oldig of rmov cn ot b gte sc prteton if te Attore Geer det t
he "ordere, incite, asist, or ote paci in te puton of a iividu b
of te idividu's W rligon, natonlity, membhp in a pacula soial gu, or plitcal
opiion." Tis sae prscrpton-e sle ''perecur bm'-pples Wapplict fr scial
rle ccllaon of rmoval by opon of seton 203(b) of NACA, 111 Stat, M 2198.
Accor Wte OHS, te rndent is cve by te puor b bau he se fm 1981
to 1988 in a fe bation, including te notorou Diento NM 3 or 1 Milit
Dechmet ("DM-3") of the Savaor Ay, a cutersugenc uit that is kow W have
enged i wdespread hW rgts abues, including mas kllings, against bt Savador
civilias ad guer a dung te pMof te rndent's sice (OHS Br. at 5-8; Tr. M29; Ex
N
We @wt te OHS tat te rspndent's seice in te DM-3 rases a ronable suicion
tat te puor 0may apply Wm, ad tefre he bs te buen of demong by a
prnderce of the evidence tat te ba is inapplicable.8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d). m hs testmony
bfr te Imigaton Judge te rspondent testfe tat dung hs serc he mage logstcs
ad avoided all batles ad combat (Tr. at 27-34). Te respondent denied involvement in te
comission of ay putor &qte guerlla, te r fanworker, or oter civilias,
ad Waso never psent dung ay pecutr at (.J. M11; Tr. at 44 ). Te Immigaton Judge
fud te rndet crible in tis ra ad concluded tat he wa not subject to te puor
ba (l.J. at .12).
Te OHS also chllenges te Immigaton Judge's interrtaton ofNint Ciuit W law ad
ae t te Imgon Judge sould not have aplie ictve W law pt fm ote
United Stts Cirut Cous of Appal. For imc,

OHS M@ tat te Immigtion Judge

did not prperly aply Mrand Alvaado v. Gonales, 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9 Cir. 2006), ad t
baue ter W prent fm te Nint Circuit the Imigion Judge M i aplyig ay
ictve preent fom outside te Nint Ciruit.
Te OHS m@mtat te Immigton Judge gtoglcite to mV. Gonales,. 497 t.3d 990 (9
Ci. 207). Te OHS is M Ul M V. OOmdl0$, w wtdw W gtwcul0w w
pnding bfr te Surme Cou. mNegie v. Holder, 129 S. L.1159, 1163-64, 1167-68 (2009),
te Suprme Cou held tht it deision in Fedorenk V. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981) does
not cntl t queston WMN ter is a "dW " or a "involutiness" exception to te
''or ba" in setion 208(b)2)(A) of te Imigon ad Natonalit Act. Ter is no
(cntnue ... )
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
A094142 206
We te OHS disges wt te Iigton Judgets intertaon ad applicaton of te
pets - in pcula te ` of a" w in some of te insve pent - te
Imgon Juge ayd te it ce in a maner conisnt wt Nint Ciu law. See
Mrand Alvad v. Gonales, sura. For intce, conistent wt te individuliz evauon
of bt pon involvemet M pusefl asistce of perur ats tat is rud by
Mrand Alvara v. Gonales, te Iigation Judge fud te rsndent did not peronaly
fit the peuon, Wnot prent dung pItons, ad hs act of providing logstcal
suppr we too rmoved fom ay pecor &(.J. at 11 ). See Miraa Alvaado v. Gonales,
supra, (rg a paculaz evaluton of pnal involvement to ac culpabilit). Te
Imigon Judge fud tat te rendet did not hve ay discron in deiding wheter to
det individus ad did not have ay rle in te t1et of tese individus once ty wer
detained (J. at 11-12). Id
Abset evdence tat te rndent psonal y engage in or supred pruor actvties,
te mer of bis serice mthe DM-3 dug the ely 1980s is not sf cient to eblish 0he
pusfly "ass., i t puion of guerlla or civilias. See Mra Alvaado V
Gonles, sura, (fding "[m]er acquiCce or membership in a ortio
,,
is if ciet
to ss te putor excepion" (quoting Vuirovic v. Ashcrof, 362 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9 Ci.
200)));Matter o/Rodigez-Majano, 191&N Dec. 81 1, 814-15 (BI 1988) ("[emembp
i a orgzon, even one whch egages in prsecuton, is not sufcient to ba one fom rlief
but ony if one's action or inacton fer that puton i sme w). Wile we akowledge
the OHS' agets, we wll M te I igtion Judge's deternaton tat te pereutor ba
is not a impiment to te rspondent's eligibilit fr spia-rle ccellaton of removal uder
NA CAR.
Te OHS also challenges te Immigton Judge's favorble crdibilit deterination, aguing
tat te rnent ts accout of hs experieces contained discrpacies tat rfet a intenton on
bis pa to concea te te ntu of his actvte. Lie te OHS, we W tubled b sme of the
disccies m te rspndent's accut of his milit serice in El Salvador. Despite sch
conW, te fact remains tat tis Board rviews a Iigton Judge's fa fnding only W
derine whether tose fndigs ae "clely erneous." 8 C.F .R. {1003. 1 (dX3)(i}. Cle eror
rvew is "sigfcatly deferntia" to te ter of ft, ad preludes us fom revering te fact
fnder simply baue we W "convince" tat we would have deide te cae diferntly, or
weige the evidenc difenty, 0 we be n te fat-fmder. Concrete Pie and Products of
Calioria Inc. v. Cont. Laborers Penion Tt Fun for Suher Cliornia, 508 U.S. 602, 623
(1993); Anrson v. Cit of Bessemer Cit, North Caolina, 410 U.S. 56, 573-74 (1985). B
elucid te meg of te clea er r sdt te Suprme Cu b explae, "(i]t is not
enoug t might gve te M aote conction, rsolve te abiguites diferntlyt ad
fnd d mor sinster cast to actions wch te [fader] appaently deme inoct." United
Sates v. Nat'/ Ass 'n of Real Etate .,339 U.S. 485, 495 (1950). Lte cont, whe ter
( contnued)
dus or involuntaness defense involved wt te intt C_ ad we fnd tis inappropriate
citon to b a han less err by te Imigton Judge. See Ma"er of Sanlos, 19 I&N De. 105
(I 1984).
J
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
9

AV9 19 0
8W0m88bl0V0W8000V0NO,000t80b0MDM0mm0Ib0mm00
0lljeoneu. Anderson v. Cit a/Bessemer Cit, supra, at 319(it 0IM0MII00]. 0
00M0I-h00t8obseratonal NVNMg08,@I00m0hMmu8Ib0m =Wh0h@Wg
Ih00NblQ0WM088M. 0 at 313. wh0m0N, Nmm@b0hu0g0 8auor I0l800
@IW0@I0hIh0 u0m0000h0lm0m0qW=mHW008808, 0VN 0IbN0Q t
Ih0 b~W0ul0 b8V0 0W 0N0hI 00h0lu80h8 0h 0 M0 fats. Andejewsk v. Fedral
Aviation Adin, 396.J0 131, 1-01 (9 CIq 6] United States v. Maclvich, V .J0
!,1J[1Ci. ]. B0t0mWt0V0t808fact 00IOb0h"0lmlj0mh0008,W0
m,ugh00h80Nl0hof `M0Nm0w0N00,b"l0RW0dft N0fnWnM0ht
8 m8M0 B b0h00W0. 0|80bl0l88V. Nl00Sates Gsm Co., JJJU.S. J, JV3
[1V96].
B V0W 0 Ib0 NQ0h00M8 j0u 8I 0 Im0 of b8 mlIN MO00 N0 h8 0V00hI 80k 0
hA08b0hQ..at 4, 3-0,6],W000h0l000tt Ib8h0hgWb000ha 0m88bl0VW0e
evidenc. Tu, 80ugbIh0m800t8h0Ifm doubt, 0W00h800M00h000Vl00h0000M
h0IMV0mWIh8"00mI0N000hV0Il0h0a m8M0h0M0=. A0mhglj,
W0W000fI00m@b0hu0g080N0blQh0hgN0accept 00h0t00N0htt
0t0Qh00hl00 not Q0uNj 0mN,h0I0, 0t N08I0 h &D 0 ``0Nm0h0mhg m8
OMh 0 b8lV800mmlMQ..M8).
Mlj,lh0DHS aes 0m0N80h00hIU0ul0bdened caceJlaton of reova due W a
Jack of cdor N0buse h00008h0ImNI8u0ht0l000X0NM0080NI0h. H0W0V0t,Ib0
Hb` nh08Dhmt0Qmhg 080V0W88 8I Ih0j bl0V0 0NQh00hI mV0 fs
0t0Obl0M0hj h 8D0m8Q0hmt Nl0 0 @b0hu0g0 0XN8lj
mWw8I 8M8m0hI, 00h0u0hg 0 0 0N008 h0 rndent's 08mW0N
adequately explained W Ih0 00w M0t bhg 8 00lM8I0 00U w 00MV0. P h0I=
gt0V0u8lj,W0h0h000NMIi 8I00k D8b0h,N0W0Wawe of h000tNV0N0NM
i lh0N80h00hI8 bakgud t W0u0 WWI 80hg 8I h0 8udeserg of a favorble
exerise 0 0AlI0m0j U0u0M'8 080Nb0h. A000tdhg], W0 h0 h0 08 mt 0VNlhg 0
m@lhu0g08080ht te rondent 80l@bl0fr, N000Mg0,a gt 0Q8l-
m0OMll8b0h0reova. See 6L..{1J,[0][J].
A0mhglj,0mll0Wg 0t0NNb0hI0r=.
088808m88=.
1M L! Pt W 6 L... { 1J. l [0][0], Ih0 m 8 NmN0= I0 t
@0hu0g0Wt0ww0Nl0WBgte Depaent 0H0m0lN0bmljW0@mQ
m mlW 0t u8I0 00hbQ, mW 0h0TNj 0t st investgaton or e ons, N0
fe yg8,h8N,N0HI00hg0N0m0tmV0=bj6L...{iJ.91}.
9
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
+
W
,,
mm1N LH1
'/
\ '
b0b b1Lb1., Ib` LH
LbANLb,LA M9
lB the Mater of: LUNA CANALES, JOSE SANTOS
Case No.
:
A094-142-206
Respondent lNRM
O
VAL PROCEEDIGS
Tis is a summar of te orl deision enterd on _
18m0m0mh0w88ol0l,for 0 convenienc of 0NW. l 0 eings 8hoal0balor ropne, 0
orl deision wll 00M0 h0 ofcial opinion in 00W.
[
] Te rspondent was orderd removed fom the United States to or in the
alterative to
[ )
Repondents application fr volunt depanr was denied and rspondent wa orerd rmoved to
or in taltemaqto .
( )
Respondents appliction fr volunt depaur ganted until upn posting a bond
in the amount of$
I
with an alterative order of removal V
Respnts application fr:

`

`

Asyam WW ( ) granted ( ) denie( .1thdrawn ( ) o

Withholding of rmoval was ( ) e ) denied (.ithdrwn ( ) other.

[ espondents application fr ['ithholding of removal []deferl of removal under Ari, ce lof the
Convention Against Torre was ( )grted ( ) denied (rawn ( ) oter.

[
] A Waiver under section was ( ) grnted ( ) denied ( ) withdrawn ( ) other.
+
[ J
Cancellation of rmoval under section z+aa(.,.@n:ed ( )00D00 [) Wh0l8WB [ )othe
Respndent's application fr:

( ]
Cancellation under section 240A(b)(l) was ()granted ()denied ()withdrwn ()other. lf gted, it
W om008lh0saaeata88B00an apaate a~amaB000888Q to give 0 to this ora0r.
( ]
Cancellation under section 240A( )(2) wa ( ) grated ( ) denied ( ) withdrawn ( ) other. @mt00, it
W8om0that the ::sasaatb |ssaaalJ appropriate a~aesossstagiv0 eft to this order.
[ ] Adjusent of Stts under section
'' ()
:ganted ()denie ()withdrwn ()other.
@8B00, W aaa8lsnd0nt be issut11 apprpriate doument necs to give efect to tis
om0.
_.
[ ] Respondent's status was rscinded under section 246.
[ )
Respondent is admited to the United Sttes as a until
[ ]
P8a condition of admission. rspondent is to pos a $ bond.
[ )
Respondent kowingly fled a fivolous aylum application afer proper notice.
[
] Respondent was advised of the limitation on discrtionar rlief fr failur to appear ordered in the
Immigrtion Judge's orl decision.
[ ] roceedings were t rmina d.
[
O
ther
:
gggg
Oat0 _
LLKlLAL bKYL
LLNMW OUY. MH(M) lKbLMPL
L! [ ] L c ustodial UU>r [ ) LM'8 l

LLHP

m0m00U [ ] -33 [ 1 L-6 [ ) Lgal Seric List [ ) L0 Q

I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t