Aaron Tarin (Utah Bar#12258) Ishola Tarin PLLC Counsel for Respondent 1750 W.

Research Way Suite #204 West Valley City, UT 84119 (801) 886-0500 (801) 908-0500 fax aaron@isholatarin.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF mSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRA TION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION mDGE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH In the Matter of: File

Non-Detained IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

Immigration Judge: PEAD

Next Hearing: January 12,2012,8:30

a.m.

RESPONDENT'S

APPLICATIONIMOTION FOR PROTECTION CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (CAT)
1

UNDER THE

Respondent'-:.""I!~~i!~iiEt

through Counsel, Aaron Tarin, hereby expresses and

makes evident via this motion his fear of being tortured if returned to his native country of Mexico. Respondent further makes clear hi~ intent to seek only relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Respondent does not seek asylum or withholding or removal relief at this time. The said application/motion for CAT protection is supported by Respondent's Declaration, attached here with the motion. Additional evidence in support of the relief application will be filed with the Court in due course. RESPECTFULLY DATED this 12th day of January, 2012. ISHOLA TARIN, PLLC, Attorneys for Respondent

By~ __ ~~ Aaron Tarin

_

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I hand-delivered or mailed with frrst class-mail, postage-prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Respondent's ApplicationIMotion for Protection Under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), this 12th day of January, 2012, to the following: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Chief Counsel 2975 Decker Lake Drive, Stop C West Valley City, UT. 84119

3

Aaron Tarin (Utah Bar#12258) Ishola Tarin PLLC Counsel for Respondent 1750 W. Research Way Suite #204 West Valley City, UT 84119 (801) 886-0500 (801) 908-0500 fax aaron@isholatarin.com UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF mSTlCE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH In the Matter of: File No(s).:

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS Immigration Judge: PEAD

Non-Detained Next Hearing: January 12,2012,8:30 a.m.

RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IDS APPLICATIONIMOTION FOR PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (CAT)

1

The "Respondent")

(hereafter referred to as hereby files this memorandum oflaw in support of his application/motion,

expresses and makes evident his fear of being tortured if returned to his native country of Mexico. Respondent further makes clear his intent to seek relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CA TY. The Respondent does not seek asylum or withholding or removal relief at this time. Article 3(1) of the treaty relating to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) states that, "[n]o State Party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there

are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." In making this determination the United States "shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights." Art. 3(2). As discussed below and evidenced by the attached exhibits, Respondent's native country

of Mexico has increasingly demonstrated a pattern of gross, flagrant, and mass violations of human rights perpetrated by, or at the acquiescence of government actors. Respondent individually fears being tortured in Mexico for a number of reasons expressed in his Declaration in. support of request for CAT protection. See Respondent's Declaration on Support of CA T Application.

)The Connection Against Torture is an international treaty adopted by the United States and opened for signature Feb. 4, 1985, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51 at 197, U.N. Doc. AlRes/391708 (1984), reprinted in 23 LL.M. 1027 (1984), modified in 24 LL.M. 535 (1985). The CAT was enacted into U.S. law on Oct. 21,1998. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and 105th Congo 2d Sess.

PL 105-277, div. G, sub. B, tit. XXI Foreign

Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, §2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822,

(1998), 136 Congo Rec. S17486, 36198 (1990); Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, S. Exec. Rep. 101-30 (1990).

2

Accordingly,

Respondent requests that an individual hearing be set providing an opportunity for

oral and/or expert testimony in support of the application.

APPLICATION
A request for relief under CAT requires no specific or form or application such as the Form

1-589. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 195-96 (5th Cir. 2004) [remanding to IT to consider
CAT where answers on 1-589 indicated a fear of torture]. Failure to timely file Form 1-589 is not an abandonment of CAT claim. See Louis- Martin v. Ridge, 322 F.Supp.2d 556, 561-62 (M.D. Pa. 2004). Respondent avers the following in support of his request for protection under the convention against torture: Extortion from criminals and the acceptance of bribes by my coworkers that allowed contraband to go through the border were almost a daily occurrence. These were things I totally opposed. I arrested many criminals who went to prison and who threatened my family and me saying that when they got out they would come after us. I was also threatened by my coworkers and was told that if! ever said anything about their illicit activities I would pay the consequences. These threats made me decide to quit that job. When I did I was threaten again by the other officers. They said that if 1 ever told on them they would go after my family and me. Also, from about 1995-1997, I also worked as a reported for a newspaper. I covered many stories about murders, corruptions, and the drug cartels. With the situation the way it is now in Mexico, I fear that maybe someone might take vengeance against me for the work I did there. My brother just got killed in Mexico as a la enforcement officer. Another incident that added to our feeling of insecurity was that one day I got a call about 6 in the morning. It was my neighbor, who told me that someone was breaking into my car. Since I was a Federal Agent, I had my gun, which I took with me and was able to apprehend this individual. I held him at gunpoint until the local police arrived and since they had him and a bag of stolen stereos and so on from him working, or steeling all night he was taken into custody and later on sent to prison. When they took him he told me that as soon as he got out, he would come back to bum my house. He also threatened my family. Needles to say, our concern for our family's safety kept growing. To make matters worse, after I quit the Customs Department, I started a business with a good friend of mine. We bought and sold mobile homes. I had to travel for business every week, and after we 3

made that into a successful venture, one day I came back from a business trip to find our mobile home lot and all the trucks and equipment gone. The person whom I considered a good friend disappeared with everything we had. He embezzled of about, $100,000.00 dollars. Since I was an LOS Bishop at the time I thought that there wouldn't be any good reason to go after him. I decided peace was better than justice. That is why my family and me decided to leave Tijuana, Mexico, and search for a better place where I can be safe with my family. To make matters worse for me, on January 5th, 2012 my brother, was found dead in his home in Mexico. He was a law enforcement officer in Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico, and was of leadership rank. As of this writing, his death is still being investigated and no one knows what happened really. The whole thing seems very suspicious and it worries me a lot especially because I look a lot like him, and I was a law enforcement officer in Mexico like him.

See Exh. 1: Respondent's

Declaration of Support of CA T Application

at 1-2. Thus, the

present submission and arguments, coupled with Respondent's sufficient to place the Court on notice of Respondent's seek relief under CAT.

application and Declaration, are

fear of torture in Mexico, and his intent to

NON-APPLICABILITY OF ASYLUM CLOCK
The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIl) has designate that certain asylum cases filed after January 1995 be "expedited" for completion within 180 days consistent with statutory requirements imposed under INA § 208(d)(5)(A)(iii). OPPM No. 00-02: The Asylum Clock at Pg.

3. However, an application only for protection against torture is NOT an asylum application and thus there is no asylum c1ock,ld at 6 (citing Revised OPPM No. 01-01, Asylum Request

Processing). FRIVOLOUS WARNINGS AND CONSEQUENCES NOT APPLICABLE
The INA requires the IJ to provide certain warnings regarding the filing of frivolous asylum applications. See INA § 208(d)(4). An alien deemed to have filed a frivolous asylum application shall be permanently ineligible for benefits under the act. See INA § 208(d)(6); Matter ofY'L, 24

4

I&N Dec. 151, 154 (BIA 2007). In determining that an application for asylum is frivolous, the IJ must address the issue separately to make the specific fmdings that the applicant deliberately fabricated material elements of the asylum claim. Id. at 155. Moreover, the alien must be afforded an opportunity explain and resolve any discrepancies or implausible aspect of the claim.ld. The

BIA has stated that the term "fraudulent" may be more appropriate than the term "frivolous" when applied to a questionable asylum application. Id. at 162, n 1 (Citing Barreto-Claro v.

u.s. Att'y

Gen., 275 F.3d 1334, 1339, n.ll (lIth Cir. 2001) (observing that the term "frivolous" generally
means "insignificant, trivial, silly or gay" (quoting Webster, New International Dictionary (3d ed. 1961 »). However, obvious legal insufficiency of a claim does not support a frivolousness fmding even in the asylum contest. See Scheerer v.

u.s. Att'y Gen., 445

F .3d l311, l318 (11 th Cir. 2006).

CA T claims however are not subject to the above mentioned asylum advisals nor can a frivolous CAT claim implicate the harsh penalties of INA § 208(d)(6). See OPPM No. 00-02: The

Asylum Clock at Pg. 17 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.19).

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CAT CLAIMS
The REAL ID Act of 2005 fully restored jurisdiction to the Circuit Courts to review CAT claims even for aliens with convictions that would otherwise bar judicial review. INA § 242(a)(2)(D). Specifically, any perceived due process violation due to IJ bias or prejudgement of a

CA T claim is an issue fully reviewable by the federal courts. Id. See generally Ismaiel v. Mukasey 516 F.3d 1198, 1204 (10th Cir. 2008); Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2010) ("We note that '[t]be jurisdiction-stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not deprive us of

jurisdiction over denials of deferral of removal under the CAT, w bich are always decisions on the merits.' Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F .3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir.2008)").

5

ENABLING LAW The Law
The United States has ratified Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits a state from returning a person to a country "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture." United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature Feb. 4, 1985, G.A. Res. 39/46,39 (1984), reprinted in 23 lL.M. U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51 at 197, U.N. Doc. AIRES/391708

1027 (1984), modified in 24 1.L.M. 535 (1985); section 2242(b) of

the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, Division G, 112 Stat. 2681 (Oct. 21,1998).

See generally 8 C.F.R § 1208.16©) (2005) ("Torture Convention");

Nuru, 404 F3d at 1217; Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2005);In re G-A-, 231. & N.
Dec. 396 (BIA 2002). The Department has acknowledged its obligations under the Torture provisions.

Convention and has indicated its intent to comply with the non-refoulment Reg. 10,812, 10315 (Mar. 16, 1997).

See 62 Fed.

Moreover, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16 and 1208.17 (2008), specifically establish standards to govern eligibility for the alternative reliefs of withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the Torture Convention: (4) in considering an application for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, the immigration judge shall first determine whether the alien is more likely than not to be tortured in the country of removal. If the immigration judge determines that the alien is more likely than not to be tortured in the country of removal, the alien is entitled to protection under the convention against Torture. Protection under the Convention Against Torture will be granted either in the form of withholding ofrernoval or in the form of deferral of removal. An alien entitled to such protection shall be granted withholding unless the alien is subject to mandatory denial of withholding under paragraphs (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section. If an alien entitled to such protection is subject to mandatory denial of withholding of removal under paragraphs (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section, the alien's removal shall be deferred under § 1208.17(a). 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16( c)(4).

6

Standard of Review
Although the burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that persecution or torture is more likely than not if returned to the country ofremoval,_the testimony of the applicant, alone, is

sufficient to meet the standard, particularly if supported by evidence of past torture inflicted on the applicant or evidence of gross human rights violation in the country of removal, or other relevant evidence regarding conditions in the country of removaL See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16( c)(3); Matter of

J-E, 231. & N. Dec. 291, 302 (BIA 2002). Further, unlike an asylum or withholding applicant, a
CA T applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that he will be tortured irrespective of where he relocates in the country ofpersecutionitorture. Cir.2004). See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th 8

Moreover, criminal record of the applicant in the United States is not a bar to CAT.

C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). Moreover, unlike asylum and withholding of removal under the INA, protection under CA T does not depend on a showing that mistreatment would be based on any enumerated grounds or particular characteristic such as race or political opinion. See, e.g., Cruz-Funez v. Gonzales ..406 F.3d 1187,1192 (10th Cir. 2005). Reliefunder CAT is thus mandatory if the convention's criteria

are met. See 8 C.F.R.§ 1208. 16(c)(4) (an alien meeting CA T's criteria "shall be granted" withholding of removal or, at a minimum, deferral of removal); see also Ismaiel v. Mukasey, 516 F .3d at 1204 ("Although a grant of asylum is in the discretion of the Attorney General, restriction on removal is granted to qualified aliens as a matter of right"); Elzour v. Ashcroft, 378 F .3d 1143, 1150 (10th Cit. 2004). But, like withholding of removal, the burden of proof on the applicant under CAT is higher than that of asylum. Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F .3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cit. 2006). In order to merit CAT, an applicant must demonstrate that he/she is "more likely than not"

7

to be subject to torture upon removal and allows proof of the claim through an applicant's testimony alone, ifcredible, even without corroboration. 8 C.F.R. §§208.16(c)(2), 1208.16(c)(2);

Mattera! J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 302 (BIA 2002); see also Ismaiel, 516 F.3d at 1204;

u v.

Holder, 380 Fed Appx. 769 (10th Cir, 2010). The standards for corroboration of evidence for asylum and withholding do not necessarily apply to CAT claims, see IN A §208(b )(1 )(B)(ii) and §243(b)(3), although the credibility standards may apply to all three forms of relief Compare INA §208(b)(1)(B)(iii) and §241(b)(3)(C) with INA §240(c)(4)(C),z

Defmition of Torture The BIA has defmed torture as: (1) an act causing severe physical or mental pain or suffering that must be "an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment" and not lesser forms; (2) the act must be "specifically intended" to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and an act that results in unanticipated or unintended severity of pain or suffering does not constitute torture; (3) the act must have an "illicit purpose" such as "obtaining information or a confession, punishment for a victim's or another's act, intimidating or coercing a victim or another or any discriminatory purpose;" (4) the act must be an intentional government act directed against a person in the offender's custody or control and "negligent acts or acts by private individuals not acting on behalf of the government" are not covered; and (5) the act "does not include pain or

suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" such as a judicially imposed death penalty. Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 297-99 (BIA 2002); see also Ismaiel, 516 F3d at 1204, n.4.

z See Ismaiel, 516 F 3d at 1206, n.6 ("We also note the congressional

directive that credibility ... without

determinations should be based on considerations of 'the totality of the circumstances regard to whether an inconsistency,

inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's

claim,' 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) and 1229a(c)(4)(C); see 1231 (b)(3)(C), although that directive applies only to applications filed more recently than Mr. Ismaiel's."),

8

Evidence In assessing whether a person is more likely than not to be tortured in the future, and IJ
must consider all evidence available including: (l) evidence of past torture; (2) evidence that the applicant could relocate to another part of the country where s/he would not likely be tortured; (3) evidence of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights within the country; and (4) other relevant information regarding country conditions. 8 C.F.R. §§208.l6(c){3), 1208. 16(c)(3); Matter

of J-E-, at 303. Country conditions are relevant in assessing withholding, Matter ofG-A-, 23 I&N
Dec. 366, 368-72 (BIA 2002), even if they are insufficient, standing alone, to obtain withholding.

Aguilar- Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 704--05 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010). In re S-V-, 221. & N. Dec. 1306, 1313 (BIA 2000), the Board held:
the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights in a particular country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country. Specific grounds must exist that indicate that the individual would be personally at risk. Here, Respondent's testimony would show that he personally fears torture in Mexico for a

number of reasons, including the fact his brother was recently killed in Mexico as a law enforcement officer and Respondent was a former law enforcement officer in Mexico. Respondent's Declaration in support of CAT request, at 1-2.

See

Objective Standard
The standard of proof for CAT is more objective and the subjective elements of asylum and withholding are not applicable. See Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953,959-61 (9th Cir. 2006)

[although BIA made adverse credibility fmding in regard to whether applicant would be tortured upon return, the objective evidence from two DOS reports indicated he was likely to be tortured and therefore deferral of removal should be granted even if person engaged in terrorist activities]; Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 404--06 (6th Cir. 2005) [IJ reversed for failure to separately 9

analyze credibility issues for CAT after making a generalized negative credibility fmding]; Camara

v, Ashcroft, 378 F3d 361,371-72

(4th Cir. 2004) [following Ramsameachire and other circuits claims are not dispositive of a

and fmding that credibility determinations as to asylum/withholding

CAT claim because the latter is objective while the former applies to applicant's subjective state of mind]; Ramsameachire
v,

Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 184-86 (2d Cir. 2004) [same].

No Protected Ground Required
Unlike asylum or withholding or removal, CAT has no requirement that the fear of torture occur on account ofa statutorily protected ground. See Cruz-Funes v, Gonzalez, 406 F.3d 1187, 1192 (10th Cir. 2005). An If's determination that there is no basis for withholding/asylum does not

necessarily mean the person is ineligible for CAT relief. See Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226-28 (4th Cir. 2010) [detailing differences between CAT and withholding to explain why petitioner had to address separately CAT denial on appeal]; Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685,696-97 (4th Cir. 2008) [reversed and remanded CAT denial where BIA erroneously failed to

engage in a separate analysis of petitioner's CAT claim from China based upon facts separate from her "resistance to population control" asylum claim].

Action or Acquiescence of Government
All that is required for CAT is that the torture be perpetrated by the government or at the "acquiescence of any public official
OJ

person acting in a governmental position. Id. "Acquiescence

of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting the torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to prevent such activity." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7). However,"Congress knowledge, made its intent clear that actual to the torture of

or willful acceptance, is not required for a government to 'acquiesce'

its citizens." Funes, 406 F.3d at 1192 (citing Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th
Cir.2003). Rather, "[w]illful blindness suffices to prove acquiescence." Ontunez-Tursios v.
10

Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341,354

(5th Cir.2002) (quotations omitted); Valdeviezo-Galdamez

v. Attorney

General of US, --- 2011 WL 5345436, *6 (3d Cir.) ("acquiescence

to torture [as used in the

regulation] requires only that government officials remain willfully blind to torturous conduct and breach their legal responsibility to prevent it.") .

In this case, the evidence will show that Mexican officials either directly would inflict
torture on Respondent or they would tum a blind eye to his being tortured.

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF COUNTRY CONDITIONS IN MEXICO
The courts have held that country conditions in the nation to which the alien will be deported must be reviewed. See Valdeviezo-Galdamez, --- 2011 WL 5345436, *7 ("[C]ountry

conditions alone can playa decisive role [in determining if relief is warranted] ... [and] the law does not require that the prospective risk of torture be on account of certain protected grounds." (citing Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir.200l)). According to the U.S. State Department's Mexico Human Rights Report 2010, the

Mexican National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) and other sources reported that there are a substantial human rights problem in Mexico which includes, but is not limited to: wave of murders and other violence against young people by cartels and other illegal forces; high rate of homicide against women; profusion of violence against anyone who opposes or interferes with the cartels and other Mexican illegal organizations; unlawful murders by security forces; kidnappings; physical abuse; arbitrary arrests and detention; conuption; confessions coerced through torture;

violence and threats against journalists leading to self-censorship; domestic violence, including murders of women; trafficking of women; social and economic discrimination against members of the indigenous population; child labor; poor prison conditions and lack of transparency that engendered impunity within the judicial system. See Exhibit 8A, page 1.

11

Respondent describes below a few of these problems with citations to authorities.'

Murder Rate In Mexico vs, United States
According to the CNSN ews.com report, individuals run the greater risk of being violently murdered in Mexico than in the rest of the civilized world. For example, the rate of murder in

Mexico is nine times higher than in Western Europe and over four times higher than all the countries of Europe and Asia. Further, according to Mexico's Secretary of Interior, Francisco Blake Mora, as reported to the newspaper, EI Universal, there are currently 12 violent homicides for every 100,000 Mexican residents, which is approximately 1 homicide for every 8,300 residents. is 1.5 for 100,000 and 2.87 for

Ex L page 1. The equivalent rate of homicide for Western Europe

every 100,000 for the 37 countries of Europe and Asia. See Nation Master, Crime Statistics, Murders (per capita) (most recent) by Country, available at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri _ mur _percap-crimemurders-per-capita, last visited on the United States

January 6, 2012, The rate of homicide in Mexico is even two and one-halftimes which has a fairly high rate worldwide.

See Wikipedia, List of Countries by Intentional Homicide
by _intentional_ homicide _rate,

Rate, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilList_of_countries_

3

These statistics are directly relevant to respondent's

cancellation of removal because in July 2011,

there was a very important decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which the Court ruled that certain Guatemalan women may qualify for asylum based upon the high rate of murder of women in Guatemala. whether the Respondent,

See Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010).

Further, in an unpublished decision on October 21 2011, the Board remanded to the U to consider a Mexican national, merits relief under the CAT, for having been The Board specifically stated that "[w]e will remand this assaulted as a homosexual in Mexico.

matter to provide the parties the opportunity to supplement the record with evidence relating to current conditions in Mexico, and the Immigration Judge should assess current current conditions there in evaluating whether the respondent's Mexico." life or freedom will be threatened upon his return to (attached as Exh. 2).

Matter oj

[redacted, BIA 2011) (Unpublished)

12

last visited January 6, 2012 (according to a global study on homicide reported in Wikipedia United States' murder rate at 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and Mexico's murder rate at Central

the

America at IS murders per 100,0000 in 2010). See also U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Mexico, AprilS, 2011, available at http://www .state.gov /g/drVrls/hrrp1l20 1O/wha/154512. Mexico's Secretary of Interior also stated that organized crime related to the narcotics/drug trafficking is responsible for the high murder rate in Mexico. Ex. 8L, page 2. Mr. Mora believes trafficking and as a result,

that for decades Mexico has remained silent about narcotics/drugs institutional structures have been weakened. According to CNSNews.com, Mexico since 2006. Id. Id.

1,200 children have been killed by drug cartel violence in

Sonora
The U.S. State Department has issued a warning to travelers to defer non-essential travel to the Mexican states ofMichoacan, security problems. Jalisco and Sonora due to the ongoing violence and persistent

Ex. SM, page 2.

The U.S. State Department does not advise travel to border region states such as Sonora. Ex. 8M, page 3. In particular, the region west of Nogales, east ofSonoyta, and from Caborca

north, including the towns of Saric, Tubutama and Altar, and the eastern edge of Sonora bordering Chihuahua, as these areas are known centers of illegal activity. Id. The U.S. State Department has stated that much of Mexico's narcotics-related occurred in border region states such as Sonora. violence

Ex. 8M, page 3. According to the U.S. State

Department, Northern, Eastern and Southern Sonora has been identified as a key region in the international drug and human trafficking trades and can be extremely dangerous for travelers. Id. U.S. citizens have been reported murdered in many of the border region states of Mexico such as 13

Sonora.ld.

Firefights between drug-related cartels and the Mexican authorities have taken place in

public venues, such as restaurants and clubs. Jd.

In the city ofN ogales in the state of Sonora, the U. S. Consulate requires that staff
members must travel in armored vehicles because of the high probability of drug-related violence. Ex. 8M, page 2-3.

In 2010, in the coastal town of Puerto Penasco in the state of Sonora, there have been
multiple incidents of drug-related violence, including the shooting of the city's police chief. Ex. 8M, page 3. In Southern Sonora, highway robbery and carjacking are ongoing security concerns for travelers driving on the Mexican toll road Highway Jalisco According to the U.S. State Department, official U.S. government employees are prohibited from traveling to Colotlan Jalisco and Yahualica, Jalisco, both near the Zacatecas border because of an increasingly dangerous security concern. Ex. 8M, page 6. Concerns include roadblocks placed by individuals posing as police or military personnel and recent gun battles between drug-related cartels using automatic weapons. recommend travel to these areas. Id. In addition, the border areas between Jalisco state and the states of Zacatecas and Michoacan, as well as southern Nayarit state including the city Tepic, have been sites of violence involving drug-related cartels. Ex.8 M, page 6. The U.S. State Department does not advice travel to these areas. Jd. Furthermore, there are blockades between the Guadalajara Airport and the Guadalajara metropolitan areas due to drug-related violence and as a result, U.S. government employees are only authorized to travel between Guadalajara and the Guadalajara Airport during daylight hours. 14 15 in Sonora. Ex. 8K, page 5.

Jd. The U.S. State Department does not

Id. Michoacan
According to the 2011 U.S. State Department Travel Warnings, the state ofMichoacan, home to the one of Mexico's most dangerous criminal gangs, "La Familia." Attacks on is

government officials and law enforcement and military personnel, and other incidents of drug-related violence, have occurred throughout Michoacan, including in and around the capital of Morelia and in the vicinity of the world famous butterfly sanctuaries in the eastern part of Michoacan. Ex. 8M, page 6. The U.S. State Department does not advise travel to Michoacan

because of the recent and growing drug-related violence. Id. Violence is rising in Michoacan, despite heavily armed patrols and thousands of arrests, proving that President Calderon's gang cartels. Ex. 8Q, page 1. When President Calderon took office in 2006, he sent in approximately 5,000 federal troops to the state of Michoacan focusing on the drug trade in Apatzingan. Ex. 8T, page 1. As strategy is failing to stop the violence of the drug and criminal

the La Familia drug cartel violence escalated, President Calderon felt it necessary to send more additional federal troops to the state ofMichoacan.

Id.

In July 2009, he sent an additional 5,500 federal troops to Michoacan after 12 federal
police officers were killed with their bodies stacked on the highway with a note daring feds "to come for another one of us." Id. There are over 10,500 federal troops in the state ofMichoacan, making it one of the most dangerous states in Mexico due to the drug cartel violence. Id. La Familia, Michoacan's methamphetamine most notorious brutal drug gang, is known for dominating the Ex. 8N, page 1-2. They first

trade, counterfeiting, extortion and kidnapping.

gained national attention by tossing five severed heads onto the floor of a dance hall in September

2006.Id. La Familia has infiltrated police ranks and city halls, and spread into neighboring
15

Guerrero and Mexican states, as well as at least 30 U.S. towns and cities, including the Los Angeles area. fd. Violence is rampant in Michoacan due to criminal and drug gang activities. Ex. 8N, page

1. In December 2010, according to the Mexican authorities, La Familia's top leader, Nazario
Moreno Gonzalez - a.k.a. "EI Mas Loco" (the craziest), was killed during two days of fierce gun battles in Michoacan. fd. During the two days of fighting, federal forces were deployed in Michoacan.

fd. They battled scores of gunmen from La Familia who torched stolen vehicles and
a spokesman for the

barricaded roads in a dozen cities. Id. According to Jonathan Arrendondo,

Michoacan attorney general's office, the gunmen arrived at all five roads leading into Morelia, Michoacan and fired into the air to force drivers and passengers from their vehicles. Ex. 8-0, page He was

1. An Associated Press reporter saw a 75-year-old man being treated for a bullet wound.

a passenger on a bus and was struck by a bullet as he tried to flee the gun battles. Ex. 8-0, page 1. According to

Mr. Arrendondo, another 75 year-old diabetic man was shot and injured. EX.8P,

page 1. The man was walking too slowly for the La Familia gang member so they shot him. Id. At least 11 people were confirmed killed including five federal police officers and an 8-month-old baby who was riding in a taxi with his mother. Ex. 8N, page 1. Another person to be shot and

killed was the teenage daughter of a former Apatzingan mayor. Id. She was riding in a car that was caught in the gun battle crossfire. Ex. 8-0, page 1. Government security spokesman Alejandro Poire said that the La Familia gunmen carried away their dead and injured so that it was difficult to tell how many people actually died or were injured. Ex. 8N, page 1. In September of 2008, Morelia, Michoacan was under a grenade attack. Ex. 8P, page 2, and Ex. 8T, page 1. A grenade tore through a crowded Independence eight people and wounding more than 100 other people. Id. Evidence that the La Familia criminal gang has infiltrated all levels of government can be 16 Day celebration, killing

seen in the recent example of Mr. Servando Gomez.

Ex. 8Q, page 1. According to the 2010

federal payroll for teachers, Mr. Gomez, a suspected La Familia gang member and known as "E1 Profe" (The Prof), earned about $4,150 during the first half of 20 10 as a registered school teacher in a small town in Michoacan. Id. Mexico's education system, like other publicly run sectors, has been criticized for including people on the payrolls that do not actually work. Id. Another example of the La Familia infiltration into the Mexican government is that of Miguel Ortiz Miranada. Ex. 8R, page 1. Mr. Miranda, alias "El Tyson," was the police

commander of a special operations unit in Michoacan.

Id.

According Ramon Pequeno, head of the anti-narcotics unit of the federal Public Security Ministry, Mr. Miranda began working for the La Familia criminal gang in 2005 after accepting a large bribe to release a detained La Familila gang member. Ex. 8R, page 2. From then on, Mr.

Miranda provided the La Familia cartel with information on police movements and offered protection. Id.

Mr. Miranda became to the director of operations in the capital city of'Moreila,

Michoacan for the the La Familia drug cartel. Ex. 8R, page 1. On August 24, 2010, Minerva Bautista Gomez, security chief for the state ofMichoacan was ambushed by gunmen led by Mr. Miranda. after Ms. Gomez was leaving a state fair. Id. Ex. SR, page 1. The brazen public attack came

Her entourage was blockaded by a truck on a

narrow highway passage and gunmen opened fire from both sides of the road. Id. Investigators recovered 2,700 spent shells and 350 high-caliber bullets had hit her heavily armored SUV. Id. Two of Ms. Gomez's bodyguards and two passing motorists were killed. Id.

In addition to the attack on Ms. Gomez, Mr. Miranda is suspected of being responsible for
the June 14,2010, ambush outside Zitacuaro that killed at least 10 federal police agents, as well as the 2009 assassination of a senior public security official and decapitation of a Michoacan state prosecutor. Ex. SR, page 1.

17

There is also further evidence of drug-related corruption among government officials in the state ofMichoacan. Ex. 8T, page l. In May 2009, twenty-seven public officials in Michoacan,

including 10 mayors, were arrested and accused on drug links. fd. Their charges were thrown out by Judges in 2010, also suspected of helping the drug cartels. fd. Other violence occurring is the state of'Michoacan include the city of Zitacuaro, Ex. 8S, page 1. In June of2010, suspected drug gang gunmen ambushed a column of federal policemen on their way to Mexico City. fd. The ensuing shootout left ten policemen dead as well as several gunmen. fd.
In the state ofMichoacan,

federal police are not immune from the murderous La Familia

drug cartel. Ex. 8S, page 1. In 2010, La Familia kidnapped 12 federal police offers, decapitated them and dumped their bodies on a local highway .. fd. As the violence continues in Michoacan, in January 2011, Francisco Aparicio Mendez, the chief of police of Taretan, Michoacan, was gunned down in front of his wife and children on a road. Ex. 8V, page 1.The assailants, who used a vehicle to intercept the Mr. Mendez's automobile prompted the police chief to get out of his car and then shot him 40 times in the upper body with high-powered AR-15 rifled at close range. shreds and unrecognizable.

fa.

Mr. Mendez's body was completely ripped to

fa.
where 1200

Five hundred marines and soldiers were deployed to the area ofMichoacan

villages fled their homes during a three-day clash between other rival gangs. Officials report that only 300 people remain in shelters. Estimates by the International Displacement Monitoring Centre, indicate that 230,000 people in Mexico have been displaced due to cartels. Gustavo Ruiz, Mexico Drug Violence leaves 28 Dead; 700 Flee, Huffington Post, May 26, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.comJ20 11105/26/ mexico-drug-violence-Ieav _n_ 8673 86.htrnl.

ill Buenavista, Michoacan, "police chief Othoniel Montes Herrera said he has neither the 18

manpower nor the armament to patrol rural areas frequented by drug gangs. Sending ill-armed officers out there 'would be certain death, and we're not thinking of putting our personnel at that risk.'" Gustavo Ruiz, Mexico Drug Violence leaves 28 Dead; 700 Flee, Huffington Post, May 26, 11105/26/ mexico-drug-violence-leav _n_ 867386.html.

2011, http://www.huffmgtonpost.coml20

Puebla In Puebla, drug related violence is a constant threat. See Pedro Angel Palou et al., The Walls ofPuebla, N.Y. Times, Oct. 16,2010 available at
http://www.nytimes.com/20
10/10/17 lopinionl

I7palou.html. The lack of faith in the government by

the Mexican people in the city ofPuebla

is astounding.

Id. Even in the cities wealthiest residential

areas, drug lords are found, and residents live behind prison-like walls with barbed wire and electrified fences. Id. Children's rights groups such as Mexico's Children's Rights Network have found that children are being targeted by gangs. See Daily Mail Reporter, Drug Cartels Sink to New Low as

they Murder Children to Scare Off Rival Gangs in Mexico, MailOnline, Apr. 11,2011,
http://www .dailymail. co. uklnews/article-13 7557 8IDrug-cartels-murderchildren-scareMexico.html. rival-gangs-

A twenty-two month old toddler, the only survivor of a massacre, was shot and

murdered at close range. Id. In another incident, a mother and five year-old child were both targeted and gunned down. Id. The Mexican government has a database which it archives murders believed to be linked to at least seven cartels. See DATABLOG, Guardian, Jan. 14,2011, http://www .guardian.co.uklnews/datablog/20 Il1janl14/mexico-drug-war-murdersmap. As of

Mexico Drugs War Murders Data Mapped, The

2010 the number of cartel related murders was 36,612, however there have been many murders since then, so the number is much higher now. The database has also mapped the geographical

19

distribution of violence highlighting the fact that no region has been spared from the violence, however Cui dad Juarez along with the Northern and Pacific Coastal states have been the most affected.ld.

Nayarit
Nayarit, Michoacan and Zacatecas have become battlegrounds control of the area. The Mexican Army reported for drug cartels fighting for

a gun battle between rival cartels Sinaloa and the

Zetas, which left 29 dead in the country's Pacific Coast. Gustavo Ruiz, Mexico Drug Violence

leaves 28 Dead; 700 Flee, Huffington Post, May 26, 2011,
http://www.huffingtonpost.coml20 11/05/26/ mexico-drug -violence-leav _n _ 867386 .html. "The

Sinaloa cartel, Mexico's most powerful, has long been active in Nayarit, which borders its home base in Sinaloa state, but the gang has recently been challenged by the Zetas and by renmants of the Beltran Leyva cartel." Id.

Durango
"In Durango state, which borders Nayarit to the north, authorities have been excavating dozens of corpses from mass burial grounds used by drug cartel killers," as of May 2011, the total number of bodies found at seven lots in the state capital was 223. See Gustavo Ruiz, Mexico Drug

Violence leaves 28 Dead; 700 Flee, Huffington Post, May 26, 2011,
http://www.huffingtonpost.coml20 11105/26/ mexico-drug-violence-Ieav _n_8673 86.html.

Drug Trafficking Violence and Killings
In 2010, Mexico experienced a high number of murders related to narcotics and drug trafficking.

In 2010 there were 15,273 drug-related murders. Ex. 8A, page 1. This is an almost

two-thirds increase of narcotic murders.

sid rug-related murders compared to 2009 were there were 9,616

Ex. 8K, page 1, and Ex. 8U, page 1.

According to Mexican government officials, more than 34,612 people have died as a result

20

of Mexico's drug-related violence since Mexican President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006. Ex. 8K, page 1. The Mexican government unveiled a new database on January 12,2011, which catalogues murders presumed to be linked to organized crime. Ex. 8L, page 1. It lists 30,913 execution-style killings; 3,153 killings that are termed as "confrontations" as "aggression" or other clashes. Id. or shootouts, and 546 deaths classified

In order to combat the drug trafficking violence, the Mexican government has deployed
45,000 military troops to help combat the narcotic-drug activities. Ex. 8A, page 1. One reason why the government has deployed so many army troops is that it feels that the local police cannot be trusted. Ex. 8L, page 3. Drug cartels with massive financial resources have managed to infiltrate the underpaid police force, from the grassroots level to the very top. Id. Efforts are under way to rebuild the entire structure of the Mexican police force, but the process is expected to take years.ld. The Mexican drug cartels are extremely powerful. Ex. 8L, page 3. They control the

trafficking of drugs from South American to the U.S. Id. The estimated worth of the Mexican drug trade is $13 billion a year. Id. AU. S. State Department report estimated that as much as 90% of all cocaine consumed in the U.S. comes from Mexico. ld.

In April of20l0

in Ciudad Jaurez, the local government lost control over the fight against

narcotics/drug trafficking and had to give control over to the Federal Police which deployed 5,000 officers and coordinated with 2,800 municipal police and 200 state police. Ex. 8A, page 1. In August of 201 0, the bodies of72 migrants, 58 men and 14 women from Central and South America were discovered in the state of Tamaulipas. kidnapped and shot dead by the drug cartels. Id. Ex. 8A, page 3. The migrants were

Killings by Military Government Security Forces and the Mexican Police
21

According to the Human Rights Watch, World Report on Mexico 2011, the Mexican government security forces continues to commit serious human rights abuses, yet those who are responsible are rarely prosecuted. Ex.8 B, page 1. Journalists, human rights defenders and migrants are increasingly attacked or killed by the narcotics/drug trafficking cartels and by members of the

government security forces. Id. The human rights abuses includes, killings, torture, and rape. Id. According to Mexico's National Human Rights Commission, there were more than 1,100 human rights violations in the first six months of2010. Ex. 8B, page 1. In addition, there were

detailed reports on 65 cases involving army abuses since 2007. Id. Many Mexicans are not only unsafe from the narcotics/drug trafficking violence, they are unsafe from the protection of government security forces hired to protect them. On April 13, 2011, the bodies of Juan Carols Chavira, 28, Dante Castillo, 25, Raul Navarro 29 and Felix Vizcarra, 22 were discovered in a shallow grave in Ciudad Juarez. Ex. 8F, page 1. The bodies were found at the time a judicial hearing was taking place in Ciudad Juarez to begin proceedings against three police officers accused of the disappearance of the four men. Id.

At least 15 other police officers belonging to the Delta Force remain under investigation for the disappearance of these four men. Id. These men have not been detained and charges against them

have not been filed. Id. The implicated police are suspected of collusion with organized crime in connection with the disappearance of the four men. Id. There is fear among the victims family and

relatives and the local human rights defender that they remain at risk of harm because of the collusion between the police who are suppose to protect them and their involvement with organized crime. Id. In 2010, some of the alleged murders committed by government forces are: • January 2010, gunmen claiming to be federal police twice attacked a group of Central American migrants who were travelling on a train from Arriaga to Ciudad Ixtepec, Oaxaca.

22

Ex. SA, page 2. The attacks left three dead, two women raped, and one minor injured. ld. The migrants reported the incident to the Brothers Along the Road Shelter in Ciudad Ixtepec, Oaxaca, which subsequently requested help from the Office of the Attorney General, yet the investigation never progressed by the end of2010. • March 19,2010,

Id.
Institute. Id. The

soldiers killed two students at Monterrey Technological

soldiers allegedly mistook the two students as criminals and shot them in the university library, killing both instantly, yet no arrest of the soldiers had been made by the end of 2010. fd. • June 2010, the National Defense Secretariate (SEDENA) allegedly altered the scene in

which Martin and Brayan Almanza Salazar, ages five and nine, were shot and killed on April 3, to create the impression that the shots occurred during a firefight with a criminal gang. Id. The CNDH concluded that the children had been killed by direct fire from the army troops. fd. The army claimed that the children had been killed by shrapnel from a

grenade thrown by member of organized crime. The investigation remained unresolved by the end of2010. • August 22,2010, Id. solders on a highway in Guerrero shot and killed U.S. citizen Joseph Id. The soldiers involved were

Proctor after he failed to stop at a military checkpoint. arrested and awaiting trial by military court. Id. •

September 5, 2010, a military convoy fired upon a vehicle that allegedly failed to stop at a checkpoint on a major thoroughfare leading into Monterrey.

Id. A family of seven was

riding in the vehicle, and the shooting resulted in the deaths of 15 year-old Alejandro Gabriel de Leon Castellanos and his father Vicente de Leon; five other family members sustained injuries. Id. The four soldiers were awaiting trial by military court for homicide by the end of2010. fd.

23

Past cases involving violence by the government security forces have remained unresolved. They include: • January 2009, a migrant shooting involving two federal police officers and the deaths of three civilians. Ex. 8A, page 3. • February 2009, the abduction, torture, and killing of the president and secretary of the Organization Guerrero. Id. • The 2009 case ofNaua Bonfillo Rubio, a civilian killed by an army soldier during a bus for the Future of the Mextec People (OFPM) in Ayutla de los Libres,

inspection at a military checkpoint. Id. Often, government security forces receive not punishment for the killing that they commit. Ex. 8A, page 3. In 2008, a soldier from the 12th Infantry Battalion in Michoacan, opened fire at a military checkpoint on a pick-up truck, killing minor Victor Alfonso de la Paz Ortega and injuring Juan Carols Penaloza Garcia. Id. The soldier was subsequently released and the investigation was concluded. Id Other examples of 2008 killings by government security forces which remain unresolved are: the March 2008 killing of four persons in Sinaloa, the June 2008 killing of three civilians in Chihuahua, and the July 2008 killing of a teenager in Aguascalientes. Ex. 8A, page 3.

Violence against Human Rights Defenders and those who oppose Violence.
The Mexican government security forces have failed to protect Mexican Human Rights Defenders. Ex.8 B, page 2. Between November 2009 and May 2010, two human rights defenders

received menacing phone calls and emails and were constantly followed by the police and the military.ld. One of the human rights defenders was told by a masked man to leave town if she did

not want her family to be harmed. ld. Another human rights defender had his care firebombed

24

outside of the family home.fd. Both human rights defenders eventually fled Tijuana out of fear for their lives. Id.

In January 201, Josefina Reyes, a Mexican human rights defender, led protests against
alleged abuses by Mexican soldiers in Jaurez Valley, before she was killed. Ex. 8C, page 1. In August 2010, Ruben Reyes, Josefina's brother was killed.

fa. In March

2010, Josefina's mother's

home was set on fire while she was protesting the crimes against her family.fd. In February 2010, Josefina Reyes' kidnapped sister, brother and sister-in-law were found dead in the dessert southeast of Ciudad Juarez, two weeks after they were reported missing.

fa. The

surviving relatives of slain

human rights activist, Josefina Reyes, are seeking asylum in the United States due to the killings of their family ..Id. In June 2010, Cipriana Juardo, a human rights defender, fled Mexico to the United States. Ex. 8G, page 1-2. She was granted asylum in the United States after threats from the Mexican army because she investigated cases of people allegedly murdered by Mexican soldiers. Id. The Mexican army threatened Ms. Juardo by sending soldiers to her home under the guise that they were inspecting her house for drugs and weapons but were in fact trying to intimidate her and her family. Id. Ms. Juardo may become the first woman activist in recent history to be granted asylum after alleging abuse by the Mexican govemment.ld. Ms. Juardo's inunigration attorney, Mr.

Spector, believes that she meets the requirement that she is a part of a social group offemale human rights defenders whom the Mexican government is persecuting politically. Id. Mr. Spector was able to prove a nexus between Ms. Juardo's political opinion and her persecution. Id. In this

case, Ms. Juardo's complaints against the Mexico army and their subsequent threats to her. Id. Ms. Juardo conducted an investigation in the murder of Saul Becerra where she had collected evidence from the medical examiner that he had been murdered by the Mexican army. Ex. 8G, page 1. In addition, Ms. Juardo had conducted an investigation in the murder of Ms.

25

Josefma Reyes, a human rights defender, who was murdered along with her two sons. Id. At least 19 human rights defenders in the state of Chihuahua have been assassinated since

2008. ld. Violence Against Women
According to an article by the Christian Science Monitor, female homicides, "femicides," almost doubled to 1,926 in 2009 from 1,,085 in 2007, according to the national statistics agency. Ex. 8Z, page 2. "Most of these women are dying at the hands of their partners or people they know, or in highly vulnerable situations, specifically because they are women," says Rocio Garcia Gaytan, president of the federal government's National Women's Institute (Inmujeres).

Id.

Federal investigations made possible by a 2007 law have been halted by three states, most recently Mexico State. Id. In January 2011, Mexico State voted against a federal investigation into a steep rise in women murders in the state. ld. Mexico State has defended its decision to bar the federal investigation, saying it was a politically motivated attempt to tarnish its governor, Enrique Pefia Nieto, considered a presidential contender for 2012 elections for the main opposition party.

ld.
Of little help are antiquated customs, such as police encouraging women to reconcile with their abusers and some state penal codes absolving sex abuse if the victim marries the perpetrator. Ex. 8Z, page 3. Abuse rates in recent years run as high as 60 percent in some states, such as Mexico State. ld. According to Amnesty International, more than 800 bodies of women have been found since February 2005 in the city of Juarez. Ex. 8K, page 1. And over 3,000 women are still missing. Id. These femicides have given Juarez the nickname, "the capital of murdered women."

Id.
According to the Organization of American State's Inter-American Commission on Human

26

Rights: The victims of these crimes have preponderantly been the state of young women, between 12 and 22 years of age. Many were students, and most were maquiladora workers. A number were relative newcomers to Ciudad Jaurez who had migrated from other areas of Mexico. The victims were generally reported missing by their families, with their bodies found days or months later abandoned in vacant lots, outlying areas or in the desert. In most of these cases there were signs of sexual violence, abuse, torture or in some cases mutilation.

Ex. 8K, page 2. In 2003, Amnesty International issued a report, Intolerable Killings: 10 years of abductions
and murders of women in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua.

Ex. 8K, page 2. The report concluded

that 370 women had been murdered in Juarez, with about a third having suffered sexual violence before being murdered. Id. Approximately half ofthese cases remain unsolved. Id. Based on press reports and information from prominent Ciudad Juarez women's activist Esther Chavez Cano, the US-based Mexico Solidarity Network reported 508 women were slain in Ciudad Juarez from 1993 to mid-December 2008. Ex. 8AA, page 2. A comprehensive list compiled by El Paso-based journalist and author Diana Washington Valdez reported 440 women were murdered for varied reasons in Ciudad Juarez from 1993 to 2004. Id. If subsequent press stories are added to Washington Valdez's total, then at least 622 women were slain in Ciudad Juarez between 1993 and most of March 2009. Id. In 2007, Ciudad Juarez press accounts signaled that the majority offemale murder victims, 55, were killed because of the gangland war that raged in Ciudad Juarez. Id. Speaking to the Mexican press in 2008, feminist activist and Casa Amiga co-founder 27

Esther Chavez assessed the situation for women in Ciudad Juarez 15 years after Chavez helped alert the public to the rising tide of'femicides. Ex. 8AA, page 2. For Chavez, generalized impunity and rampant police corruption resulted in the creation of a monster that eventually reared its head against the entire society. ''Now we can't control it," Chavez said. Id. In 2008, at least 86 women were murdered in Mexico, according to a recent blog posting by Washington Valdez. In addition to domestic and sex-related violence as being leading causes of women's murders, narco-violence is now a major reason for the high rate of women's homicides. Id. Since January 2010 more than 50 women have been killed in Juarez. Ex. 81, page 1. In December 2010, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica, a body

which investigates Mexican human rights violations has found that the Mexican government has been negligent in investigation and preventing violence against Juarez's women. The court said that the Mexican government's Ex. 81, page 2.

disinterest in pursuing justice for the murders of

women perpetuated the violence against women. Id. The court ordered the Chihuahua state government to reopen investigations to find and punish officials who botched cases in the past and
to build a monument to Juarez's murdered women. Id. It further admonished

the Mexican

government for their indifference that the women had gone missing and that they did not take measures "to find the victims alive." Id. According to an article by BBC News, between 1999 and 2006, more than 6,000 women and girls were murdered. page 1. A recent report from the Mexican Chamber of Deputies' femicide commission revealed that at least 2,232 women were killed in all of Mexico during 2006-07, mostly due to domestic violence. Ex. 8AA, page 2. While the country's main population center of Mexico City and the adjoining state of That is an average of 1,000 every year, three murders a day. Ex. 8X,

28

Mexico accounted for the majority of women's homicides (543), the much more sparsely-populated state of Chihuahua, which includes Ciudad Juarez, registered 84 slayings in the

time period covered by the study. Ex. 8AA, page 2. The official report concluded that gender violence is keeping women in a subordinate position in Mexican society. Id. "Violence against women, for the sole fact of being women, puts them in a relationship of inequality, oppression, exclusion, subordination, discrimination, and marginality," the report stated. Id.

Other Mexican states where women's murders reached alarming levels during 2006-07 included Michoacan (202), Guerrero (129) and Baja California (105), suggesting that where narco-violence was at an extreme so were crimes against women. Id. The Chamber of Deputies'

report also noted a national pattern of governmental indifference and denial of justice for the family members of slain women. Id. In Ciudad Juarez, meanwhile, disappearances of young women who

fit the profile of earlier femicide victims also continue unimpeded. In one of the most recent cases, a young mother, 22-year-old Marisela Avila Hernandez, vanished March 18 after going to a Bancomer bank branch where she had an account to process an unemployment claim. Id. The

bank is located near the San Lorenzo Curve, a section of the city where crimes against both women and men have been frequent. Id On March 27, friends and relatives of a young woman reported missing six months ago, 17-year-old Rubi Marisol Frayre Escobedo, joined Chihuahua state law enforcement authorities in a search for traces of their loved one. Id. In 2010, in Chihuahua, Mexico, 36 women and 71 girls have been reported missing as documented by Justicia para Nuestras Hijas (Justice for Our Daughters). December Ex. 8BB, page 2. On

17, 2010, Marisela Escobedo was killed in front of the Chihuahua state government

palace for protesting the release of her daughter Rubi's partner, who had confessed to her murder. Id. On January 11,2011, Susana Chavez, a 36-year-old poet and women's rights activist, was raped and murdered

in Ciudad Jauarez. Id.
29

In February of2011, the Reyes Salazar family lost three more family members to attacks
that began in January 2010, with the murder of Josefma Reyes, a human rights activist who had been demanding justice for the death of her son since 2008. Id. The vendetta against her family had included the murders of two brothers and a sister-in-law, and the burning down of her mother's house, in the face of complete inaction on the part of the authorities. ld. Even the respect and fear of law enforcement officers such as police chiefs have not stopped the femicides in Mexico.ld. Female police chiefs in Mexico have been murdered or have received threats against their lives. In the state of Chihuahua, two women police chiefs have been murdered.

ld

In October 2010, Hermilia Garcia, the female police chief of Meoqui, Mexico was murdered less than two months into her new job. ld. In October 2010, Marisol Valles, a 20-year-old criminology student, was appointed chief of police ofPraxedis, in Valle de Juarez. ld. The news of her appointment spread, and after six

months into her job, she and her family fled their home and applied for asylum in the United States because they had received so many threats. ld. On March 29,2010, Brenda Carrillo, commander-in-chief of the Chihuahua state police

was murdered along with her five-year-old daughter. bullets as they arrived at the little girl's school. ld. Impunity for Government

ld. They were gunned down in a hail of

Officials Committing Human Rights Violations

The vast majority of military members are never prosecuted for their human rights abuses because the military justice system lacks the independence investigations and suffers from a lack of transparency. necessary to carry out reliable

Ex. 8B, page l.Since 2007, only one

military officer has been sentenced by military courts for human rights violations. ld. According to Amnesty International, there has been repeated and documented collusion 30

between criminal gangs and public officials, yet the officials are rarely prosecuted for human rights violations. Ex. 8H, page 1. In April 20 11, the arrest of 16 local police officers and 18 criminal gang members in connection with a mass killing of 120 people in Tamualipas state is an example of this kind of collusion. fd. Criminal Justice System The Mexican criminal justice system has failed to protect its citizens from violent crimes and human rights violations due to corruption, inadequate training and resources, and abusive policing practices without accountability. Ex. 8B, page 1. Police torture is a widespread problem

in Mexico. fd. It is acceptable for judges for accept confessions obtained through police torture. Id. This problem is due to a lack of investigation and prosecution of police torture cases. fd. Many Mexicans are held in pretrial detention without ever having been convicted of a crime.ld. According the Human Rights Watch 2011 report on Mexico, over 40 percent of

Mexican prisoners have never been convicted of a crime and are held in pretrial detention for years before a trial. fd. This contributes to prison overcrowding. Id. In January of20IO, 23 prisoners

were killed in a riot in an overcrowded prison in Durango. Id. Overall Significance of CounW Reports and Statistics In Present Case

In Matter of Maria Julia Cortez, A070-224-904

(BIA, 2011) (Unpublished),

the Board

similarly ruled that consideration must be given to the high crime and violence rates in EI Salvador in a cancellation of removal case. See Exh 3.

In sum, Respondent urges the IJ to consider his

CA T claim in light ofthe country conditions in Mexico, as done by the Board in Cortez, supra, Therefore, based upon the country conditions cited above, and the materials to be submitted with respect to Respondent's native country and particular circumstances, the Respondent possesses a

reasonable fear of serious harm, torture and danger ifhe were deported to Mexico.

31

CONCLUSION AND PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT
As the arguments and evidence presented above demonstrate, there is overwhelming evidence of the Mexican government's involvement in human rights violations and torture as

defmed under CA T. The Respondent fears being subject to such treatment if returned to Mexico. Thus, he respectfully requests an individual hearing where oral testimony can. be taken from Respondent and/or any experts that counsel may deem appropriate to present his CAT claim. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of September, 2012.

Aaron Tarin Attorney for Respondent 1750 W. Research Way #204 West Valley City, UT 84119

32

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE FOr

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (CAT), was served this date on September 12,2012

Office of Chief Counsel 2975 Decker Lake Drive, Stop C West Valley City, UT 84119

u.s. Department of Homeland

Security

Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration Court 2975 Decker Lake Drive #200 West Valley City, Utah 84119, Via hand-Delivery or First Class u.s. Mail, postage-prepaid.

Aaron Tarin Ishola Tarin PLLC 1750 W. Research Way #204 West Valley City, UT 84119

33

Table of Contents
Exhibit 1. Declaration of Exhibit 2. Matter of Exhibit 3. Matter Exhibit 8. Table of Internet Exhibits [redacted, BIA 2011) (Unpublished) ~BIA, 2011) (unpublished) 3 7 11

MY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF CAT APPLICATION
When my family and I were living in Tijuana, Mexico, I worked for the Federal Government in the Customs department. Being part of that agency, I found myself in.many situations that were uncomfortable and unpleasant. I ended having many problems with. my fellow workers because I was not willing to participate in their corruption schemes .. Extortion from criminals and the acceptance of bribes by my coworkers that allowed contraband to go through the border were almost a daily occurrence. These were things I totally opposed. I arrested many criminals who went to prison and who threatened my family and me saying that when they got out they would come after us. I was also threatened by my coworkers and was told that ifI ever said anything about their illicit activities I would pay the consequences. These threats made me decide to quit that job. When I did I was threaten again by the other officers. They said that if! ever told on them they would go after my family and me. Also, from about 1995-1997, I also worked as a reported for a newspaper. I covered many stories about murders, corruptions, and the drug cartels. With the situation the way it is now in Mexico, I fear that maybe someone might take vengeance against me for the work I did there. My brother just got killed in Mexico as a la enforcement officer. Another incident that added to our feeling of insecurity was that one day I got a call about 6 in the morning. It was my neighbor, who told me that someone was breaking into my car. Since I was a Federal Agent, I had my gun, which I took with me and was able to apprehend this individual. I held him at gunpoint until the local police arrived and since they had him and a bag of stolen stereos and so on from him working, or steeling all night he was taken into custody and later on sent to prison. When they took him he told me that as soon as he got out, he would come back to burn my house. He also threatened my family. Needles to say, our concern for our family's safety kept growing. To make matters worse, after I quit the Customs Department, I started a business with a good friend of mine. We bought and sold mobile homes. I had to travel for business every week, and after we made that into a successful venture, one day I came back from a business trip to find our mobile home lot and all the trucks and equipment gone. The person whom I considered a good friend disappeared with everything we had. He embezzled of about, $100,000.00 dollars. Since I was an LDS Bishop at the time I thought that there wouldn't be any good reason to go after him. I decided peace was better than justice. That is why my family and

1

me decided to leave Tijuana, Mexico, and search for a better place where I can be safe with my family. matters worse forme, on January 5th, 2012 my brothe •• ~.was found dead in his home in Mexico. He was a law emorcernent officer Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico, and was of leadership rank. As of this writing, his death is still being investigated and no one knows what happened really. The whole thing seems very suspicious and it worries me a lot especially because I look a lot like him, and I was a law enforcement officer in Mexico like him. Sincerely,

Dated: January

,2012.

;

2

U.S. Department

of

J

ce

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
j/07 u~burg Piu. SUite 2000 Falls Church. VitFlfia 22041

Quintanilla, Edgardo, Esquire Quintanilla law Firm 13701 Riverside Drive, Suite 200 Sherman Oaks; CA 91423-0000

OHSIICE 606 S. Olive Street. 8th Floor
LOS ANGELES, CA 90014

Name

Qate of this notice: 10121/2011 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced Sincerely, case.

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:

Creppy, Michael J. Grant. Edward R. Liebowitz. Enen C

3

u.s. Ofpflrtq)ent

of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

File:

Los Angeles. CA

Date:

IN

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Edgardo Quintanilla, Esquire

Asylum; withholding of removal; Convention Against Torture

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely appeals an Immigration Judge's decision dated May 3, 2011, which found him removable as charged, and denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 208 and 24 1(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3). and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208. J 6(c)(2). The appeal will be sustained in part and the record remanded. We review the findings of fact, including the determination of credibility, made by the Immigration Judge under a "clearly erroneous" standard. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (d)(3 )(i). We review all other issues, including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, and issues of discretion, under a de novo standard. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii); Matter of A-S-B-. 24 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 2008). Since the asylum application was filed after May 11, 2005, it is governed by the provisions of the REAL 10 Act. Matter of S-B-. 24 I&N Dec. 42 (BlA 2006). Hence, the amendments made by the REAL 10 Act to section 208(b)(1 )(8) ofthe Act apply to this case. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent was statutorily ineligible for asylum because he failed to file his asylum application within 1 year of his arrival in the United States and failed to establish either changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse the untimely filing of his asy1wn application OJ. at 12). See section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a). The respondent did not appeal this issue and it is deemed waived. The Immigration Judge alternatively denied the respondent's asylum application, as well as his application for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, on the basis that the respondent was not credible (U. at 7-9). However, the adverse credibility finding is clearly erroneous inasmuch as it based on minor inconsistencies and improper speculation (Resp, Br. at 15). I See Ren v. Holder. 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (trivial inconsistencies that under total

1 The respondent raises a due process argument regarding the manner in which the Immigration Judge questioned him on details that fanned the basis of the adverse credibility finding (Resp, Br. at 13). However, in light of the present determination reversing the adverse credibility finding, there is no prejudice to the respondent.

4

no bearing on petitioner's veracity should not form basis of adverse credibility determination); see also Cosa v, Mukasey, 543F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir. 2008) (speculation and conjecture cannot form basis of adverse credibility finding). The inconsistencies regarding the incident which formed the basis for his past persecution claim were not significant in light of the totality of the record. Whether the respondent went to the club with three friends or four, and whether he left the club at 1:30 or 4 :00 in the morning. are not significant discrepancies given the remainder of the respondent's account Likewise. the alleged implausibilities regarding his HIV medication are based on speculation. Accordingly. the adverse credibility determination cannot be affirmed. We disagree with the Immigration Judge's determination that the respondent did not suffer past persecution CU. at 11-12). The beatings and rape inflicted on the respondent while in detention clearly rise to the level of persecution (Tr, at ] 25~31). He testified that while he was detained and assaulted, the police officers alluded to his homosexuality, telling him that they were teaching him a Jesson so that he would act like a man outside of jail (Tr. at 129; Resp. Br. at 24). This is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a central reason for the respondent's persecution was his membership in a particular social group, i.e., homosexuals. See Boer-Sedano v, Gonzales, 418 FJd 1082.1088 (9th Cir. 2005) (sexual assault of respondent by police officer on account of respondent's homosexuality sufficient to constitute past persecution). Accordingly. the respondent's mistreatment constitutes past persecution on account of a protected ground. Since the respondent suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground, he is entitled to the presurnptionhis life or freedom would be threatened. 8 C.F.R. § 1208. 16(b)(1)(i). The burden shifts to DHS to rebut the presumption that his life or freedom would be threatened by demonstrating a fundamental change in circumstances or the respondent's ability to internally relocate. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1 ) (ii), We will remand this matter to provide the parties the opportunity to supplement the record with evidence relating to current conditions in Mexico, and the Immigration Judge should assess current conditions there in evaluating whether the respondent's life or freedom would be threatened upon his return to Mexico. The respondent may update the record as to his claim of future harm, independent of past persecution, and the Immigration Judge should consider the testimony of the respondent's expert in assessing this claim (Tr. at 72-113). She should also consider the respondent's voluntary return to Mexico in 2008. See Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, supra, at 1091-92 (homosexual Mexican national's return trips may be a factor in determining eligibility for relief). Furthermore, inasmuch as the Department of Homeland Security did not contest the respondent's HIV status, the Immigration Judge should accept that fact as established (Tr. at 69; 1.1. at 13). Because the Immigration Judge's denial of protection under the CAT was based on the clearly erroneous adverse credibility finding CU. at 13), the Immigration Judge should also reconsider the respondent's application for protection under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Accordingly, the following orders will be entered. application for withholding of removal

ORDER: The appeal is sustained as to the respondent's
under the Act and the CAT.

2

5

.... _r

consistent

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings with this opinion and for entry of a new decision.

3

6

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
JI07 Loesbu'lf PiU, Suite 2000
PaUs-Churth, l'IrginjD 22041

Cooke, Arthur Campbell., Esq The Law OffIce of Campbell Cooke 4627 East 91st Street Tulsa, OK 74137

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - OKC 4400 SW 44th Street, Suite A Oklahoma City, OK -73119-2800

Qate ofthis Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced Sincerely.

notice: 121212011

case.

Donna Can Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: Grant, Edward R. Kendall-Clark, Molly Miller, Neil P.

-

-------~.~-------~.-----

AlLA InfoNet

Doc.

No.

11122836.

(Posted

12/28/11)

7

U.S. Department of Justice Exec'utive Office for linliiigrati.on Review
~alls Church,

Decision of the Board oflnunigration Appeals

Virginia

22041

Fil.e:J ••••

!I50klahoma

City, OK

Date:

tEe ""lD11

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: APPLICATION: Arthur Campbell Cooke, Esquire

Cancellation of removal

The respondent, a native and citizen ofEl Salvador, appeals the Immigration Judge's decision of January 13, 20 I 0, denying her application for cancellation of removal under Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") has not submitted a brief in opposition to the respondent's appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded for appropriate background checks. We review the Immigration Judge's findings of fact for clear error. 8 C.F.R. § I003.1(d)(3)(i). We review de novo the Immigration Judge's decision regarding all other questions on appeal, including issues of law, discretion, and judgment. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (d)(3Xii). Because the respondent's application was filed after May 11, 2005 (Exh. 2), it is governed by the provisions of the REAL ill Act. See Matter of S-B-. 24 I&N Dec. 42 (BIA 2006); see also Matter 0/ Almanza-Arenas, 24 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2009). Although a close question, after consideration of the record, appellate arguments, and the deference to be accorded to the Immigration Judge's factual findings, we do not agree with the Immigration Judge's conclusion that the respondent failed to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent met all of the cancellation of removal requirements except for proving that her removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship to a qualifying relative (I.J .at 10·11). Preliminarily, the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent only has three qualifying relative children, aged 15, 12, and 5 years (IJ. at 3-4). The lmmigration Judge found that an infant child, born of the union between the respondent's husband and another woman, and who is currently under the respondent's care "by informal agreement," was not a qualifying relative (U. at 4). We have held, however, that a stepchild such as the infant in this case should be given full consideration as a qualifying relative when evaluating hardship under section 240A(b Xl )(D) of the Act. Matter 0/Portillo-Gutierrez, 25 I&N Dec. 148, 149 (BIA 2009). Including the respondent's infant stepchild, the respondent thus has four qualifying relative children.'

1 The respondent's estranged husband is a legal permanent resident, however the respondent has not argued that her removal would cause him to experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship .
. -

--

..

~.----

AILA InfoNet

Doc. No. 11122836.

(Posted

12/28/11)

8

A070224904 The respondent's case is similar in many respects to that of the respondent's in Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002). In Matter of Recinas, supra, we held that based upon a cwnulative analysis of the respondent's hardship factors in their totality, she met the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard. Id, Like the mother in Recinas, the respondent is approximately 40 years of age and is responsible for the care offour United States citizen children (ld; Tr. at 27; 1.J. at 15). Should the respondent be removed, her children would return to El Salvador with her (Tr, at 31; 68; Exh. 2, Form EOIR-42B at 4). While the respondent in Recinas was divorced. here the respondent is separated and her husband currently pays support in the amount of $400 per month (Tr. at 31; 1.1. at 15). Although the respondent's husband testified that he is trying to reconcile with the respondent, he did not indicate that he would return with her and the children to EI Salvador (see Tr. at 60). Further, the Immigration Judge's presumption that the respondent could adjust her status through her husband (I.J. at 13) is not supported by the record, as the wait for a visa would be lengthy, even if the respondent's estranged spouse filed a visa petition on her behalf. Thus, it is likely that the respondent's removal would make permanent their separation and negatively impact the children's father's emotional and financial support. Several other factors considered in their totality would rise to the level of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" for the respondent's four United States citizen children. The respondent is currently employed by a church and has the support of a sister and four uncles and aunts in the United States (I.J. at 12). The respondent bas no family or friends remaining in EI Salvador, and the-Department of State reports that the country is plagued by widespread violent crime, violence and discrimination against women, abuses against children, child labor and forced child prostitution, and trafficking in persons (IJ. at 12; Group Exh. G, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. U. S. Dep't of State, "EI Salvador Country Reports on Human Rights PracticesFebruary2009''). The respondent has no savings and owns no property of value (I.J. at 13; Tr. at 3). None of the children's school-aged children read or write the Spanish language and the primary household language the children use is English (lJ. at 5; Tr. at 28).

In summary, should the respondent be removed to EI Salvador, she will lose her current job and family support network, and would be forced to provide for four children, three of whom are of school age and do not speak or write the Spanish language. All of these factors increase the risk that the respondent's children would be especially vulnerable to the societal problems currently impacting EI Salvador. Upon this evidence the respondent established that her removal to EI Salvador would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her four qualifying relatives. The respondent is therefore eligible for cancellation of removal. The record does not indicate any reason to deny this form of relief as a matter of discretion. We will therefore grant the respondent cancellation of removal. Section 240A(bXI) of the Act.
Accordingly, the following orders shall be issued. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. hereby vacated. The Immigration Judge's decision of January 13,2010, is

FURTIIER ORDER: The respondent's application for cancellation section 240A(b) of the Act is hereby granted.

of removal pursuant to

2

AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11122836.

(Posted 12/28/11)

9

AO~0224 904

, FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § lO03.1(d)(6), the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for the purpose of allowing the DepartmentofHoroeland Security the opportunity to complete or update identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, and further proceedings.if necessary, and for "'" on., of ~ded by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(1)).

3

AILA InfoNet

Doc.

No.

11122836.

(Posted

12/28/11)

10

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit A:

"2010: Human Rights Report: Mexico," U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, April 8, 2011, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160469.pdf "World Report 2011: Mexico," Human Rights Watch, 2011, http://www .hrw .org/en/world-report-20111mexico. "Family of Slain Mexican Activist Seeks US Asylum," Associated Press, March 4, 2010, http://news.yahoo.comls/ap/20110304/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_slain_act ivist "Threatened Mexican Journalist Gets US Asylum," Emily Schmall, September 22, 2010 http://www.aolnews.coml2010/09/22/threatend-mexican-journalist-gets-us-asyl uml. "Mexican Migrants Rights Defender Attacked," Ignacio Muniz Zamora, Amnesty International, March 31, 2010, http://www.amnesty.org/enllibrary/asset/AMR41/016/20111en/a2e81bI2-35414df6-91 e3-98d95ce8556f/amr41 01620 11en.pdf. "Bodies of Four Disappeared Men Found," Amnesty International, April 15, 2001, http://www.amnesty.org/enllibrary/assetlAMR41/020/2011/enl98438bb3-0754-4c6 4-a75e-e4a38d34c293/amr41 02020 11en.pdf. "Human-rights Activist's Asylum Hearing Today," EI Paso Times, Adriana Gomez Licon, March 16, 2011, http://www.elpasotimes.comlnews/ci_17622417. "Mexico Urged to Take Action Over Collusion Between Criminal Gangs and Police," Amnesty International, April 14, 2011, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/mexico-urged-take-action-overcollusion-between-criminal-gangs-and-police-2011-04-1

Exhibit B: Exhibit C:

Exhibit D:

Exhibit E:

Exhibit F:

Exhibit G:

Exhibit H:

Exhibit I:

"The Tortured Women of Mexico," Houston Chronicle, April 19, 2010, http://www.chron.comldisp/story.mpllworld/6964669.html

ExhibitJ:

"Women in Mexico Let Down By Failures In Justice System," Amnesty International, August 1, 2008,

11

http://www .amnesty .org/en/news-and-updates/reportlwomen-mexico-Iet-down -failures- justice-system -20080801

Exhibit K:

"Fernicides of Juarez: Violence Against Women in Mexico," Council on Hemispheric Affairs, August 3, 2009, http://www .commondreams.org/view 12009/08/03-8 "Mexico's Violent Murder Rate Is More Than Twice That of USA," CNSnews.com, November 12,2010, http://www.cnsnews.comlnews/article/mexico-s-violent-murder-rate-more-twic
e

Exhibit L:

Exhibit M:

"Travel Warning," U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, April 22, 2001, http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis__pa_tw/tw/tw_5440.html# "La Familia Cartel Leader Believed Killed In Michoacan Violence," Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2010, http://www.latimes.comlnews/nationworld/worldlla-fg-mexico-drug-lord-2010 1211,0,3271149.story "Gunmen Torch Stolen Cars To Blockade Mexican City," Associated Press, December 9,2010, http://www.deseretnews.comiarticleI700090302/Gunmen-torch-stolen-cars-toblockade-Mexican-city .html "Mexico City is Blockaded by Gunmen," New York Times, December 9,2010, http://www.nytimes.coml20 10/12/1 O/world/americas/l Omexico.html? _r=l&pa gewanted=print. "Suspected Mexican Drug Lord On Teachers' Payroll," Reuters, December 11, 2010, http://www.torontosun.comlworldl20 I 0/12/08/164 77871.html "Ex-pclice Commander Held In Michoacan Ambush," Los Angeles Times, June 30,2010, http://articles.latimes.coml2010/jun/30/worldlla-fg/mexico-bautista-arrest-2010 0701. "Violence in Mexican Town of Zitacuaro, Michoacan, Leaves 27 Dead; President Calderon Defends Anti-Drug Efforts," Latin America News Dispatch, June 15, 2010, http://latindispatch.com/20 1O/06/IS/violence-in -mexican-town-of-zitacuaro-mic hoacan-Ieaves-27-dead-president-calderon-defends-anti-drug-effortsl "Timeline: Drug War Ravages Mexican State ofMichoacan," Reuters, November 29,2010, http://www.reuters.comJarticle/2010/11/29/us-mexico-drugs-timeline-idUSTR

Exhibit N:

Exhibit 0:

Exhibit P:

Exhibit 0:

Exhibit R:

Exhibit S:

Exhibit T:

12

E6AS3SY20101129 Exhibit U: "Drug-Related Violence in Mexico; has killed 34,612 in Just 4 Short Years," StarcityNew.com, http://www.starcitynews.comldrug-related-violence-in-mexico-has-killed-3461 2-in-just-4-short-years/2471. "Police Chief Slain in Michoacan," Borderlandbeat.com, January 8, 2011, http://www.borderlandbeat.coml20 11/0 1/police-chief-slain-in-rnichoacan.html. "Asylum Granted to Mexico Woman in Case Setting Standard on Domestic Abuse," Julia Preston, August 12, 2010, http://www.nytimes.coml2010/0S/13/us/politics/13asylum.html?pagewanted=p rint. "Domestic Violence Stalks Mexican Women," BBC News, Mexico, http://news.bbc.co.ukl2Ihilamericas/6470955.stm "Mexico Country Report," U.S. State Department, March 6, 2007, http://www.state.gov/g/drlirlslhrrptl2006178898.htm. "International Women's Day Shines Fresh Light on Mexico 'Femecides,'" Christian Times Monitor, March 8, 2011, http://www.csmonitor.comIW orId/ Americas/20 1110308lInternational- Womens-Day-shines-fresh-light-on-Mexico-s-femicides/(page)/2. "Stars Case New Light on mexico Femecides," Frontera Norte Sur, Mach 30, 2009, Newspaper Tree - EI Paso's Original News Source, http://www.newspapertree.comlnews/3 61O-stars-cast-new -light-on-mexico-fem icides. "First Woman Attorney General Takes the Challenge to Fight Femicides In Mexico," GRW Newswire, https:llwww.globalroomforwomen.comlglobal-heart-blog/entry/frrst-woman-a ttorney-general-take-the-challenge-to-fight-femicides-in-mexico.html

Exhibit V: Exhibit W:

Exhibit X: Exhibit Y: Exhibit Z:

Exhibit AA:

Exhibit BB:

13

Additional references

The next link refers to an article of the NYTimes that ta1ksabout how the drug-related violence affect the lives of Mexicans in four different cities: Puebla, Tijuana, Sinaloa and Monterrey http://www.nytimes.coml201 0/10/17/opinion/17mexico-intro.html

The next one refers about how Cartels kill children to intimidate their rivals http://www .dailymail.co. uklnews/article-13 75578IDrug-cartels-murder-children -rival-gangs-Mexico.html -scare

The next two show statistics of the Murders in Mexico because of the war against drugs http://www .guardian.co.uklnews/datablog/20111jan/14/mexico-drug-war-murders-m ap http://www.bbc.co.uklnews/world-Iatin-america-12177875

This next article refers how people is fleeing because of the violence. http://www.huffmgtonpost.com/2011/05/26/mexico-drug-violence-1 eav n 867386.html

14

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful