Guevara De Vilorio v. Lynch

Filing

OPINION issued by Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; Kermit V. Lipez, Appellate Judge and Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge. Unpublished. [16-1154]

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Entry ID: 6060412

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 16-1154
SILVIA VERÓNICA GUEVARA-DE VILORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before
Torruella, Lipez, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.

Jason Panzarino and the Law Office of Johanna Herrero, on
brief for petitioner.
Zoe J. Heller, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Benjamin C. Mizer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and
Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration
Litigation, on brief for respondent.

January 9, 2017

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

Entry ID: 6060412

Silvia Verónica Guevara-de

Vilorio ("Guevara") petitions for review of a decision by the Board
of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which denied her application for
asylum and withholding of removal under §§ 208 and 241(b)(3) of
the

Immigration

1231(b)(3),

and

and

Naturalization

for

protection

Act,

under

the

Torture ("CAT"), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-18.
failed

to

establish

persecution

or

8

a

U.S.C.

§§

Convention

1158,
Against

Because Guevara has
well-founded

fear

of

persecution, and has likewise failed to establish that she is a
member of a protected group, we deny her petition for review.
I.

Background

Guevara was born in El Salvador on March 8, 1981, and
entered the United States in November 2005.

After she was charged

with removability on September 14, 2006, she filed her asylum
application, and also requested withholding of removal and CAT
protection.

She has resided in Massachusetts for over a decade,

and has no criminal history or criminal arrests.

She has three

U.S. citizen children.
Before an Immigration Judge ("IJ"), Guevara testified
that while she, her husband, and their two children were living in
El Salvador, her husband Manuel Vilorio ("Vilorio") had run a
successful trucking business.1

1

Members of a powerful gang demanded

Vilorio had entered the United States in 1993 and applied for
-2-

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

Page: 3

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Entry ID: 6060412

weekly payments from Vilorio and threatened him and his family
with death if he did not pay the extortion demands.

Vilorio told

Guevara that on one delivery, he had been followed by a car filled
with gang members wielding guns, and on another occasion gang
members had beaten him.

Her husband never paid the extortion

demands, and, fearing harm, came to the United States in April
2003.

After Vilorio left the country, gang members continued to

frequent Guevara's home, demanding to know the whereabouts of her
husband and leaving notes demanding money and threatening her with
harm if she did not comply, although she was never physically
harmed.

Guevara testified that she cannot return to El Salvador

because the gangs are still powerful and because she would not be
able to support herself there.
Guevara was initially a derivative on her husband's
asylum application.

Vilorio separated from the family in 2010.

Still, the couple were scheduled to attend an immigration court
hearing on December 11, 2011.

After Vilorio failed to attend this

hearing, the judge ordered his removal in absentia.
case

was

severed

from

her

husband's

and

she

filed

Guevara's
her

own

asylum in 1994, claiming that he and his family had been persecuted
by guerrillas and ex-guerrillas. Vilorio returned to El Salvador
in 1998, and married Guevara in 1999. He returned to the United
States in 2003, due to threats from gangs in El Salvador.
-3-

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

Page: 4

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Entry ID: 6060412

application for asylum and withholding of removal on February 6,
2013.
On September 19, 2014, Guevara attended a hearing before
the IJ, at the end of which the IJ issued an oral decision denying
Guevara's

asylum,

withholding

of

removal,

and

CAT

protection

applications, and finding that she was not eligible for voluntary
removal.

The IJ found Guevara's testimony not credible based on

discrepancies

between

statements

made

in

Vilorio's

asylum

application -- by then already two decades old -- and Guevara's
testimony.

Specifically, the IJ noted that Vilorio had made no

mention of a trucking business, but rather had indicated that he
had been a cook; Vilorio had stated that he had left El Salvador
because he had been threatened and recruited by the guerrillas;
and Vilorio had stated that he had never been threatened or
physically harmed.

The IJ further noted that though Guevara

testified that the gang members continued to extort money from her
after Vilorio had left the country, she made no such claim in her
application -- and the IJ did not find convincing her explanation
that she forgot to put it down.

The IJ did acknowledge that

Vilorio stated that he had once been followed by gang members
presumably seeking to steal his car or money.
Alternatively, the IJ found that even if her testimony
had been credible, Guevara had failed to demonstrate that she

-4-

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

Page: 5

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Entry ID: 6060412

either had been a victim of past persecution or that she had a
well-founded fear of future persecution based on a statutorily
protected ground.

He found that the threats she received were not

immediate or menacing enough to rise to the level of persecution.
To the extent that Guevara fears extortion and harm by gangs if
she were to return, the IJ found that such acts do not constitute
persecution on account of a protected ground.

Though Guevara

claimed that she would be harmed on account of her membership in
a particular social group made up of individuals perceived as
wealthy,

the

IJ

ruled

that

the

particular or socially distinct.

group

was

not

sufficiently

Even assuming the cognizability

of such a group, the IJ found that Guevara had not demonstrated
the required nexus between the harm she fears and her status as
the wife of a man with a lucrative business.

Because she failed

to demonstrate sufficient proof for her asylum application, the IJ
found that she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of
proof required for withholding of removal, and that she had failed
to establish the necessary grounds for CAT protection.
IJ

denied

her

relief

and

protection

applications.

Thus, the
Guevara

appealed to the BIA on October 14, 2014, but did not file an appeal
brief.
On January 15, 2016, the BIA affirmed the IJ's denial of
asylum.

Without addressing the IJ's adverse credibility finding,

-5-

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

Page: 6

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Entry ID: 6060412

the BIA found that even if she had testified credibly, Guevara had
failed to establish past persecution or an objectively reasonable
fear of future persecution on a protected ground.
were

neither

so

immediate
the

nor

gang's

so

menacing

extortion

was

as

The threats
to

constitute

persecution,

and

criminal

persecutory.

Similarly, the BIA found that fear of gang violence

and extortion is not "on account of" a protected ground.
found

no

evidence

of

political

opinion,

and

but

not

The BIA

determined

that

Guevara's proposed social group of wealthy individuals lacked the
particularity and social distinction to constitute a particular
social group.

The BIA likewise found that because she had not met

her burden for asylum, Guevara necessarily had not satisfied the
higher clear probability standard for withholding of removal, nor
had she demonstrated that it was more likely than not that she
would

be

tortured

protection.

in

El

Salvador

so

as

to

qualify

for

CAT

Guevara now petitions this Court to review the BIA's

decision.
II.

Standard of Review

This Court reviews the BIA's findings of fact and
determinations
standard.

of

credibility

under

a

"substantial

evidence"

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elías-Zacarías,

502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992).

A court "accept[s] the agency's

findings of fact, including credibility findings, as long as they

-6-

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

Page: 7

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Entry ID: 6060412

are 'supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence
on the record considered as a whole.'"

Segran v. Mukasey, 511

F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Elías-Zacarías, 502 U.S. at
481).

Under this deferential standard of review, a court will

reverse only if "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary."

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

"Unless the

evidence 'points unerringly in the opposite direction,' that is,
unless it compels a contrary conclusion, the findings must be
upheld."

Segran, 511 F.3d at 5 (quoting Laurent v. Ashcroft, 359

F.3d 59, 64 (1st Cir. 2004)).
novo.

Questions of law are reviewed de

Liu v. Holder, 714 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir. 2013).
III.
Guevara

spends

Discussion

substantial

portions

of

her

briefs

assailing the IJ's determination that she lacked credibility.
However,

the

BIA

determination.

did

Rather,

not

rely

the

BIA

on

the

IJ's

credibility

the

Immigration

"affirm[ed]

Judge's denial of asylum based on the determination that, even if
the respondent testified credibly, she did not establish past
persecution

or

an

objectively-reasonable

fear

persecution on a protected ground under the Act."

of

future

"Where the BIA

does not adopt an IJ's opinion but instead makes an independent,
superceding decision, we review the decision of the BIA, and not
that

of

the

IJ.

Because

the

-7-

BIA

made

no

determination

of

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

[petitioner]'s

Page: 8

credibility

in

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

reaching

[petitioner]'s credibility is not an issue here."

Entry ID: 6060412

its

decision,

Xu v. Gonzales,

424 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2005)(internal citations omitted).
Therefore,

"[w]e

cannot

determination of the IJ."

and

need

not

review

the

credibility

Id.

As to her remaining arguments, Guevara bears the burden
of demonstrating that she is "unable or unwilling to return" to
her home country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion."
1101(a)(42).

8 U.S.C. §

She has failed to meet this burden.

Guevara contends that she is a member of a social group,
namely successful entrepreneurs who resist the demands of gangs.
But "we have rejected proposed social groups 'based solely on
perceived wealth, even if signaling an increased vulnerability to
crime,' regardless of why one is perceived as wealthy."

Beltrand-

Alas v. Holder, 689 F.3d 90, 94 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting GarcíaCallejas v. Holder, 666 F.3d 828, 830 (1st Cir. 2012)).

We have

also "decided a number of cases that have rejected the argument
that people who oppose gang membership or recruitment are members
of a particular social group."

Id. at 93 (citing García-Callejas,

666 F.3d at 830 (1st Cir. 2012)).

-8-

Case: 16-1154

Document: 00117102295

Page: 9

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

Entry ID: 6060412

Guevara also argues that the threats from gangs she faced
in El Salvador amount to persecution, and she is therefore entitled
to a presumption of future persecution.

In order for threats to

rise to the level of persecution, however, they must have been "so
menacing as to cause significant actual 'suffering or harm.'"
Bonilla v. Mukasey, 539 F.3d 72, 77-78 (1st Cir. 2008) (holding
that the BIA was not compelled to find past persecution based upon
evidence of a string of threatening phone calls, a threatening
letter identifying Bonilla as a military target, and graffiti).
The threats Guevara has alleged were not so menacing as to compel
a reasonable adjudicator to find that Guevara has suffered from
persecution,

and

Guevara

has

not

alleged

any

physical

harm.

Guevara's efforts to claim that she suffered persecution through
emotional harm are similarly to no avail.

This Court recognizes

that "under the right set of circumstances, a finding of past
persecution

might

rest

on

a

showing

of

psychological

Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir. 2004).

harm."

However,

Guevara failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that the
threatening notes caused her any psychological harm.
IV.

Conclusion

Guevara's petition for review is denied.

-9-