Iliana Alonzo-Rivera, et al v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioners Iliana Guadalupe Alonzo-Rivera, Daniela Ester Paradez-Alonzo and Emely Raquel Paredez-Alonzo. Decision: Affirmed in part and Reversed in part. Petition Granted in part, Denied in part. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 1 of 25

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12382
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A202-028-326

ILIANA GUADALUPE ALONZO-RIVERA,
a.k.a. Iliana Guadalupe Alonza-Rivera,
DANIELA ESTER PARADEZ-ALONZO,
a.k.a. Daniela Ester Paredez-Alonzo,
EMELY RAQUEL PAREDEZ-ALONZO,
a.k.a. Raquel Emely Paredez-Alonzo,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 20, 2016)

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 2 of 25

Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lead petitioner Iliana Guadalupe Alonzo-Rivera and her daughters, Daniela
Ester and Emely Raquel Paredes Alonzo petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissal of denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
of Alonzo-Rivera’s application for asylum pursuant to the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal
under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). We grant their petition in part and
deny in part.
II. BACKGROUND
Alonzo-Rivera, a native and citizen of Honduras, was served with a Notice
to Appear (“NTA”) on June 28, 2014, and charged as removable under INA
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled. At the master-calendar hearing on
October 23, 2014, Alonzo-Rivera’s counsel admitted the allegations in the NTA
and conceded removability. Alonzo-Rivera filed an I-589 application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief on December 2, 2014, and listed Daniela
and Emely as derivative beneficiaries. In her application, Alonzo-Rivera stated she
2

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 3 of 25

was seeking asylum, based on the domestic abuse she had suffered at the hands of
her ex-husband, Daniel Paredes. The IJ scheduled the merits hearing on January 7,
2015.
Alonzo-Rivera subsequently filed a motion to continue the merits hearing to
a later date. The motion requested more time to prepare for the merits hearing,
because Alonzo-Rivera lived several hours away from her counsel’s office and was
unable to secure reliable transportation to meet with her counsel to work on her
case. In addition, her case was fact-intensive, and her counsel would need more
time to prepare exhibits and other materials for the hearing. Both counsel and
Alonzo-Rivera submitted supporting affidavits attesting to their logistical
difficulties in meeting to work on Alonzo-Rivera’s case; the need for additional
time to collect evidence; and the need for additional time for Alonzo-Rivera to
seek counsel so she would be better able to testify about the abuse she had
suffered. The IJ granted the motion to continue in part and rescheduled the merits
hearing for January 14, 2015.
Alonzo-Rivera filed a pre-hearing brief in support of her application and
argued she was entitled to asylum based on past persecution. She contended
Paredes’s abuse rose to the level of persecution contemplated by the INA and
asserted she was a member of a particular social group, defined as “formerly
married Honduran women who are unable to leave their relationship.” R. at 4963

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 4 of 25

500. Furthermore, she was persecuted based on her membership in that group, and
the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to protect her. Finally, she
insisted she also was entitled to withholding of removal or CAT relief.
Alonzo-Rivera filed a number of exhibits in support of her application,
including: (1) her personal declaration; (2) the 2013 State Department Country
Report for Honduras (“Country Report”); (3) the declaration of Claudia
Herrmannsdorfer, a Honduran attorney specializing in violence against women;
(4) reports related to crime, impunity, and violence against women in Honduras;
(5) a certification from the Supreme Court of Justice Special Tribunal for Domestic
Violence in San Pedro Sula, Cortes, Honduras (the “Special Tribunal”), confirming
Alonzo-Rivera had filed a domestic-violence complaint against Paredes on January
7, 2014; and (6) appointment notices from the Special Tribunal showing AlonzoRivera had three appointments between January 30 and February 17, 2014.
In her declaration, Alonzo-Rivera stated she was applying for asylum
because she feared Paredes would beat, rape, or kill her if she returned to
Honduras. Alonzo-Rivera grew up in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, and lost
confidence in the police as a child, while living in a neighborhood known for gang
violence. It appeared to her the police were complicit with gang activities, and
terrible things happened in the neighborhood despite the presence of a police
station.
4

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 5 of 25

In 2001, Alonzo-Rivera met Paredes. During their courtship, Paredes was
considerate and treated Alonzo-Rivera well. They married in 2003, and
approximately six months after the marriage, three of Paredes’s siblings moved in
with them, including his brother Danilo. Paredes’s behavior toward Alonzo-Rivera
changed, and he began to humiliate her in front of his siblings. When their first
daughter, Daniela, was born in 2005, the relationship improved for a period of
time. The couple began fighting again, because Alonzo-Rivera was upset Danilo
continued to live with them, when the other two siblings had moved away. Danilo
eventually moved, but Alonzo-Rivera and Paredes’s relationship continued to
deteriorate. Paredes told Alonzo-Rivera she was useless and would not let her
manage the family’s money, so Alonzo-Rivera had to lie to Paredes about how
much money she made to prevent him from taking her entire salary.
In 2008, Alonzo-Rivera lost her job; she and Paredes moved into her
mother’s house. Alonzo-Rivera’s mother moved in with Alonzo-Rivera’s sister,
who lived next door. Around that time, Alonzo-Rivera told her mother about
Paredes’s mistreatment and that she was afraid of him. Paredes raped AlonzoRivera for the first time approximately one month after the move. He told AlonzoRivera he could do whatever he wanted with her, because she was his wife.
Paredes also began hitting Alonzo-Rivera; on one occasion, he attempted to
suffocate her with a pillow. Alonzo-Rivera told her mother about the attempted
5

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 6 of 25

smothering, but they were too afraid to report Paredes to the authorities. When
Alonzo-Rivera threatened to report Paredes, he told her nobody would believe her.
Paredes continued to rape Alonzo-Rivera, and she became pregnant with
their second daughter, Emely, in 2009. Paredes was angry about the pregnancy
and moved out of the house. Alonzo-Rivera asked Paredes to consent to a divorce,
because she could not afford to seek a divorce without his consent, but Paredes
refused. Paredes later agreed to a divorce in 2013, after he had impregnated
another woman. Alonzo-Rivera was awarded custody of their two daughters but
did not tell the judge in the divorce proceeding about Paredes’s abuse, because she
was afraid of Paredes. After the divorce, Paredes continued to come by AlonzoRivera’s house unannounced and threatened to kill her if he ever found out she was
with another man. He also continued to demand sex from Alonzo-Rivera; when
she refused, he told her he had every right, because she was the mother of his
daughters.
In 2013, Danilo began staying at Alonzo-Rivera’s house without her
permission. Paredes had told Danilo he could stay with her to keep an eye on her.
While living with her, Danilo raped Alonzo-Rivera, and she became pregnant.
Alonzo-Rivera feared Paredes would kill her if he discovered she was pregnant and
moved in with her friend Celia Ventura, who encouraged her to file a complaint
against Paredes. Alonzo-Rivera stated she did not report Paredes’s abuse
6

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 7 of 25

previously, because she was afraid of him; she did not trust the police, and Paredes
had told her no one would believe her if she tried to report him.
Alonzo-Rivera filed a complaint against Paredes on January 7, 2014, with
“an institution called: D.V. Domestic Violence,” which was supposed to help
women who had been mistreated. R. at 262. They subpoenaed Alonzo-Rivera and
Paredes three or four times. Paredes did not appear for the first two appointments,
but he did attend the third appointment. They told Paredes if he continued
threatening Alonzo-Rivera, they would issue an order barring him from going to
her house and would punish him by “sending him to sweep the streets.” R. at 262.
Immediately after the appointment, Paredes threatened Alonzo-Rivera and told her
she would pay for bringing him there. Alonzo-Rivera went back inside and told
someone Paredes had threatened her, but the person told her not to worry. AlonzoRivera asked for a restraining order, but the person refused and said she had to
provide proof of physical abuse.
After that appointment, Paredes left Alonzo-Rivera threatening voicemails
and told her he was going to find her, and she would pay if she kept having him
subpoenaed. He also told her he had someone looking for her, and AlonzoRivera’s mother told her Paredes had been to her house looking for Alonzo-Rivera.
At the next appointment, Alonzo-Rivera told the people at Domestic Violence to
close the case, because they were not going to help her. Alonzo-Rivera then
7

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 8 of 25

decided to leave the country with her daughters. Their first attempt was
unsuccessful, but they made it to Mexico on their second attempt. They stayed in
Mexico for some time but left for the United States after Alonzo-Rivera learned
Paredes had threatened her brother into revealing where she was living in Mexico.
Alonzo-Rivera asserted she would not be able to live safely in another part of
Honduras, because Paredes was willing to find her wherever she went. She further
explained Paredes had a friend in the police department. He previously had
threatened, if she left Honduras with their daughters and later returned, he would
be able to track her through her fingerprints and identity card.
The 2013 Country Report stated “[v]iolence against women and impunity
for perpetrators continued to be a serious problem” in Honduras. R. at 406.
Specifically, the Report noted domestic violence was widespread; in many cases,
victims were hesitant to press charges. Honduran law criminalizes domestic
violence and provides a penalty of community service for a first offense and
penalties of two to four years of imprisonment for additional offenses. The law
also provides for a sentence of up to three years for violating a restraining order in
a domestic-violence case. The Report further noted the Honduran government
operated three domestic-violence shelters but did not provide sufficient funds or
resources for the effective operation of those facilities. The government also
operated two consolidated reporting centers, one of which was located in San
8

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 9 of 25

Pedro Sula, where women could report domestic-violence crimes and seek medical
and other services.
In her declaration, Claudia Herrmannsdorfer stated she was an attorney in
Honduras and had been practicing in the area of women’s rights and domestic
violence for the last 20 years. According to Herrmannsdorfer, “Honduran women
live in a culture of violence, fear, and repression,” because of the culture of
“machismo” that pervades the country. R. at 348. Under that cultural norm,
women are viewed as the property of their fathers or intimate partners and are
considered second-class citizens. Because Honduran men view their wives as
property, they believe they can abuse their wives with impunity. Accordingly,
domestic violence is commonplace in Honduran society and is viewed as an issue
best resolved in the home.
Herrmannsdorfer further explained the police likewise subscribe to the view
that women are second-class citizens; they often tell women who seek help they
should go home and seek forgiveness or stop disobeying their husbands. Police
often view domestic violence as a purely private matter in which they should not
intervene and ignore threats made against women. Because of the lack of response
to domestic-violence issues, many Honduran women do not report instances of
domestic abuse; they believe it would offer no relief and only inflame their
abusers.
9

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 10 of 25

In addition, Herrmannsdorfer explained Honduran laws and institutions are
largely ineffective in protecting women because of lack of funding, ignorance of
statutory mandates, lack of sensitivity and training, and general unwillingness to
apply laws designed to protect women. Although the Honduran government has an
executive-branch department intended to promote women’s rights, that department
consistently has been underfunded, preventing it from accomplishing its mandate.
Similarly, lack of funding in the local judiciary prevents courts from issuing
protective orders under the Law against Domestic Violence. The Law against
Domestic Violence was passed in 1997 and establishes a mechanism for domesticabuse victims to obtain a protective order against their abusers but does not provide
any criminal sanctions. Before the Law was amended in 2006, virtually no law
enforcement or judicial officers complied with its provisions. Even after the
passage of the amendments, authorities “blatantly ignore the issuance of protective
measures, and even deliberately conceal the truth to outsiders about how long it
takes to issue them.” R. at 359. Under the Law, women are entitled to immediate
protection and a court hearing within 24 hours of making a complaint; however,
they generally must wait two to three months to obtain those services.
Furthermore, the specialized domestic-violence courts mandated by the Law are in
only two cities, one of which is San Pedro Sula. These courts are understaffed and
unable to adjudicate the number of claims brought before them.
10

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 11 of 25

A 2014 communiqué by the United Nations Human Rights Council
(“UNHRC”) Special Rapporteur on violence against women stated violence
against women in Honduras was widespread and systematic. The Special
Rapporteur further noted “the lack of accountability for violations of human rights
of women[] is the norm rather than the exception,” and there were high levels of
domestic violence. R. at 376. The 1997 adoption of the Law against Domestic
Violence and subsequent amendments had not led to an effective legislative
response to domestic violence; one 2006 estimate showed the resolution rate for
domestic violence cases was 2.55 percent. A number of factors, such as the lack of
effective implementation of the laws, gender discrimination in the judicial system,
and the failure of authorities to exercise due diligence in prosecuting domesticviolence cases, created an atmosphere of impunity, resulting in a lack of
confidence in the justice system. This fostered a culture of nonreporting of
violence against women. In addition, Honduras does not have sufficient facilities,
such as battered women’s shelters, to provide protection and services to victims.
At the merits hearing, Alonzo-Rivera testified about the events described in
her declaration. During her testimony, confusion arose concerning whether
Alonzo-Rivera had sought assistance from a domestic-violence organization
separate from the Special Tribunal in which she filed her complaint and whether
certain interactions she described occurred with representatives from the
11

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 12 of 25

organization or the Tribunal. Alonzo-Rivera expressed uncertainty at times but
ultimately testified she thought the organization and the Tribunal were separate
entities.
In an oral decision, the IJ denied Alonzo-Rivera’s application and ordered
her removed to Honduras. The IJ found various aspects of Alonzo-Rivera’s
testimony “somewhat implausible,” including her testimony concerning her
domestic-violence complaint and interactions with the domestic-violence
organization. R. at 80. The IJ explained, under the REAL ID Act, Alonzo-Rivera
was required to provide a credible, consistent, and plausible account of her claim
as well as reasonably available corroborating evidence. The IJ did not question the
sincerity of Alonzo-Rivera’s testimony but nevertheless noted the implausibilities
in her account required corroborating evidence, which she had failed to provide.
Moreover, Alonzo-Rivera had not explained reasonably why she could not obtain
the necessary corroborating evidence, especially considering she had been able to
obtain other evidence from Honduras. Therefore, the IJ concluded Alonzo-Rivera
failed to meet her threshold burden of proof, and her application was denied on that
basis.
The IJ also denied Alonzo-Rivera’s application on the merits and stated she
had not demonstrated she belonged to the particular social group she identified,
because she was in fact able to leave the relationship with Paredes. In addition, she
12

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 13 of 25

did not show she filed police reports concerning the abuse or that the police would
have been unwilling or unable to help her. The IJ noted, for example, when she
was in the divorce tribunal, Alonzo-Rivera “chose not to mention the incidents of
abuse” and was advised to contact an organization to help her with her domesticabuse claim but chose not to pursue that advice. R. at 84-85. Because she had
failed to satisfy the lower burden of proof required for asylum, the IJ found she
had not established eligibility for withholding of removal. Finally, the IJ found
Alonzo-Rivera also had not demonstrated eligibility for CAT relief, because she
had “not shown that any public official or that anyone acting with the acquiescence
or consent of public officials would seek to harm her, much less torture her.” R. at
86.
Alonzo-Rivera appealed to the BIA. She argued her testimony had to be
accepted as true on appeal, because the IJ never made an explicit adverse
credibility finding. She further contended the IJ findings that portions of her
testimony were implausible were based on speculation and should be reversed.
She also contended the IJ finding that Alonzo-Rivera failed to meet her burden of
proof by not providing sufficient corroborating evidence was clearly erroneous.
Alonzo-Rivera argued her testimony was credible, consistent, and detailed;
therefore, corroborating evidence was not required. Even if such evidence was
required, it was not reasonably available; the IJ had placed undue weight on the
13

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 14 of 25

absence of certain evidence while ignoring other evidence in the record. AlonzoRivera explained her testimony about the domestic-violence organization actually
referred to the Special Tribunal; she did not seek help from any independent
domestic-violence organization.
Alonzo-Rivera also argued the IJ had erred in denying her asylum claim on
the merits and asserted the harm she had suffered rose to the level of past
persecution; she had established her membership in the proposed particular social
group. Moreover, the evidence demonstrated the Honduran government was
unwilling or unable to protect her from Paredes. In addition, Alonzo-Rivera
asserted she had established her eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT
relief. Finally, she contended the IJ had deprived her of her right to effective
assistance of counsel and a fundamentally fair hearing by scheduling the merits
hearing only 35 days after she had filed her I-589 and failing to grant her a longer
continuance to seek counsel.
The BIA dismissed Alonzo-Rivera’s appeal. The BIA found Alonzo-Rivera
was not denied due process and noted she had been represented by counsel since
October 23, 2014, and had ample time to prepare for the merits hearing.
Furthermore, she had not provided any additional documents to support her asylum
claim; therefore, she had not shown she was prejudiced or treated unfairly by the
IJ. The BIA agreed Alonzo-Rivera had not established her eligibility for asylum,
14

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 15 of 25

because she had failed to show Honduran authorities were unwilling or unable to
protect her from Paredes. The BIA noted Alonzo-Rivera never reported Paredes’s
abuse to the police and did not notify her legal representative or the court in her
divorce proceedings of the abuse. In addition, “after consulting with an
organization which provides support to victims of domestic violence,” AlonzoRivera filed a complaint against Paredes; the court warned him about mistreating
her, but Alonzo-Rivera later withdrew the complaint. R. at 4. Therefore, the BIA
concluded Alonzo-Rivera’s fear the Honduran government would not or could not
protect her was based on speculation and unsupported by the evidence in the
record. The BIA further found the objective evidence showed the Honduran
government had implemented some measures to assist domestic-violence victims,
demonstrated by Alonzo-Rivera’s ability to file a complaint against Paredes.
Furthermore, the BIA noted Alonzo-Rivera never had provided Honduran
authorities the opportunity to protect her, because she had withdrawn her
complaint before the court could take any action.
The BIA also agreed with the IJ’s finding Alonzo-Rivera had failed to
provide sufficient corroborating evidence. The BIA noted “[o]ther than the
respondent’s testimony, which the [IJ] deemed to be at times implausible, there is
no evidence in the record to show that the respondent had sought assistance or had
been denied assistance by the domestic violence organization.” R. at 4. Moreover,
15

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 16 of 25

the IJ found Alonzo-Rivera’s testimony the domestic-violence organization was
reluctant to assist her was inconsistent with the purpose and goals of such an
organization. The BIA additionally noted Alonzo-Rivera did not provide letters
from either her mother or Ventura in support of her asylum claim, despite her
testimony that both of them were aware of Paredes’s abuse. The BIA determined
Alonzo-Rivera had not shown she could not reasonably obtain letters from the
domestic-violence organization, her mother, or Ventura to corroborate her claims.
Finally, the BIA decided the record supported the IJ’s conclusion Alonzo-Rivera
did not demonstrate her eligibility for CAT relief, because she did not show she
likely would be tortured “at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence
of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity upon removal to
Honduras.” R. at 5 (internal quotation marks omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
A.

Willingness or Ability of the Honduran Government to Protect AlonzoRivera
On appeal, Alonzo-Rivera argues the BIA and IJ findings concerning the

Honduran government’s willingness and ability to protect her from Paredes are
unsupported by substantial evidence. She asserts she was not required to
demonstrate she sought protection from local authorities, because the record
evidence confirmed it would have been unproductive and potentially dangerous to
do so. Furthermore, the fact she was able to file a domestic-violence complaint
16

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 17 of 25

against Paredes is not dispositive, because the government’s apparent willingness
to protect domestic-violence victims sheds no light on its ability to protect them.
We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent the BIA
expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284
(11th Cir. 2001). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we also will
review the IJ’s decision. Id. Factual determinations are reviewed under the
substantial-evidence test. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th
Cir. 2005). Under the substantial-evidence test, we must affirm the IJ and BIA
decisions if they are “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence
on the record considered as a whole.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “To
reverse a factual finding by the BIA, this Court must find not only that the
evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but that it compels one.” Farquharson v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 246 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001).
Although the BIA and IJ need not address specifically each piece of
evidence the applicant submitted, they must give reasoned consideration to all of
the evidence presented. Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1368 (11th Cir.
2011). Where the record suggests the agency failed to consider important
evidence, a remand is necessary. Id.

17

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 18 of 25

The Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion
to grant asylum to an alien who meets the definition of a refugee. INA
§ 208(b)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). All asylum applications filed after May
11, 2005, are governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005. Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
584 F.3d 1041, 1049 n.7 (11th Cir. 2009). In relevant part, a “refugee” is any
person outside the country of her nationality “who is unable or unwilling to return
to, and is unable or unwilling to avail . . . herself of the protection of[] that country
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of” a
protected ground, such as membership in a particular social group. INA
§ 101(a)(42)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The asylum applicant bears the
burden of proving refugee status. Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1290
(11th Cir. 2006).
If an asylum applicant alleges persecution by a private actor, she must prove
her home country is unable or unwilling to protect her. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
605 F.3d 941, 950 (11th Cir. 2010). Although an asylum applicant’s failure to
report persecution to local authorities is generally fatal to her claim, such failure
will be excused where the applicant can demonstrate convincingly it would have
been futile to seek assistance from those authorities, because they would have been
unable or unwilling to protect her. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1345
(11th Cir. 2007).
18

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 19 of 25

This record suggests the IJ and BIA failed to consider evidence in the record
supporting Alonzo-Rivera’s claim the Honduran government was unwilling or
unable to protect her from Paredes. In addition to her testimony, Alonzo-Rivera
presented objective evidence showing domestic violence is widespread in
Honduras, and the Honduran government has not addressed that problem
effectively. The 2013 Country Report, the UNHRC Special Rapporteur’s
communiqué, and Herrmanndorfer’s declaration all showed domestic violence is
pervasive in Honduras, impunity for perpetrators is common, and the laws and
institutions in place to assist domestic violence victims are largely ineffective.
Neither the BIA nor the IJ appear to have given reasoned consideration to this
evidence; instead, they focused on Alonzo-Rivera’s failure to report Paredes’s
abuse to police or the divorce judge and the withdrawal of her domestic-violence
complaint. Consequently, the record shows the BIA and IJ failed to consider
important evidence concerning the Honduran government’s ability to protect
Alonzo-Rivera and whether it would have been futile for her to report Paredes’s
abuse. Seck, 663 F.3d at 1368; Lopez, 504 F.3d at 1345. Therefore, remand is
necessary to allow the agency to consider the entire record in evaluating AlonzoRivera’s application. Seck, 663 F.3d at 1368-69.

19

Case: 15-12382

B.

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 20 of 25

Lack of Corroborating Evidence
Alonzo-Rivera further asserts the BIA and IJ erred in finding that portions of

her testimony were implausible, and she failed to provide sufficient corroborating
evidence. She contends her testimony must be accepted as true and plausible on
review, because the IJ never made an explicit adverse-credibility finding. She
further asserts she was not required to provide corroborating evidence to support
her claims, because her testimony was credible, consistent, and detailed. Even
assuming such evidence were required, it was not reasonably available, and the
BIA and IJ erred in failing to afford due consideration to the corroborating
evidence she did produce.
We review factual determinations under the substantial-evidence test and
affirm the agency decision, unless the record compels a contrary factual finding.
See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286; Farquharson, 246 F.3d at 1320. In the absence of
an explicit adverse credibility finding, we accept an asylum applicant’s testimony
as credible on review. Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir.
2007). An applicant’s testimony alone may be sufficient to sustain her burden of
proof, but only if the trier of fact is satisfied her testimony is credible, persuasive,
and sufficiently specific to demonstrate her status as a refugee. INA
§ 208(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). If the trier of fact determines the
applicant should provide corroborating evidence for her otherwise credible
20

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 21 of 25

testimony, the applicant must provide such evidence unless she cannot obtain it
reasonably. Id. The BIA has held that, where the IJ determines at the merits
hearing that specific corroborating evidence should have been submitted, the IJ
should provide an opportunity for the applicant to explain why the evidence is
unavailable, ensure that explanation is included in the record, and clearly state
whether the explanation is sufficient. Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 521-22
(BIA 2015). Furthermore, in deciding whether the applicant has satisfied her
burden of proof, the IJ must not place undue weight on the lack of a particular
piece of corroborating evidence while overlooking other record evidence that
corroborates the applicant’s claim. Id. at 522. Instead, the IJ should weigh all the
evidence and consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the
burden has been met. Id.
The IJ did not make an explicit adverse-credibility determination;
consequently, we accept Alonzo-Rivera’s testimony as credible. Mejia, 498 F.3d
at 1257. The IJ found Alonzo-Rivera was required to produce additional
corroborating evidence for her otherwise credible testimony, because various
aspects of her testimony were “somewhat implausible,” but she failed to do so.
The BIA agreed with the IJ’s finding and noted specifically Alonzo-Rivera had
failed to provide corroborating evidence concerning her interactions with the
domestic-violence organization and its apparent reluctance to assist her or
21

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 22 of 25

statements from her mother and Ventura concerning Paredes’s abuse. Regarding
the lack of corroborating statements from Alonzo-Rivera’s mother and Ventura,
the IJ never determined this evidence was required; consequently, Alonzo-Rivera
did not have an opportunity to explain why she could not obtain those statements.
Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 521-22. Therefore, the BIA erred in relying on
the lack of corroborating evidence from Alonzo-Rivera’s mother and Ventura in
finding Alonzo-Rivera failed to meet her burden of proof. See id. In addition, the
BIA and IJ failed to consider all of the corroborating evidence presented by
Alonzo-Rivera; instead, they focused heavily on the lack of documentation
concerning her interactions with the domestic-violence organization. Putting aside
the confusion in the record about whether Alonzo-Rivera actually sought help from
such an organization, the agency’s failure to weigh all of the evidence and consider
the totality of the circumstances in finding Alonzo-Rivera failed to meet her
burden of proof warrants remand. See Seck, 663 F.3d at 1368; Matter of L-A-C-,
26 I&N Dec. at 521-22
C.

Reviewability of Alonzo-Rivera’s CAT Claim
Alonzo-Rivera also contends the BIA and IJ decisions do not allow for

meaningful review of her CAT claim, because they did not specify the reasoning
behind their denial of CAT relief. Where the agency gave reasoned consideration
to an applicant’s petition and made adequate findings, we do not require that the
22

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 23 of 25

agency specifically address each of the applicant’s claims. Shkambi, 584 F.3d at
1048. The agency need consider only the issues raised and announce its decision
in terms that allow us to conclude the agency “has heard and thought and not
merely reacted.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
To establish a claim for CAT relief, an alien must prove it is more likely
than not she will be tortured if removed to her home country. Reyes-Sanchez v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004). Torture involves the
intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering on a person for purposes such as
punishment, intimidation, coercion, or discrimination, “when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence
of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.18(a)(1). Acquiescence of a public official requires that the official be aware
of the activity constituting torture prior to the activity being carried out and
thereafter breach a legal responsibility to prevent that activity. 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.18(a)(7).
Remand is not warranted regarding Alonzo-Rivera’s CAT claim. Both the
IJ and the BIA specifically stated Alonzo-Rivera was not entitled to CAT relief,
because she had failed to show she would be tortured at the hands of or with the
acquiescence of government officials; this explanation provides a sufficient basis
for our review. See Shkambi, 584 F.3d at 1048. To the extent Alonzo-Rivera
23

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 24 of 25

seeks review of the merits of her CAT claim, substantial evidence supports the
BIA and IJ findings. Alonzo-Rivera never reported Paredes’s abuse to the police;
consequently, she could not show Honduran officials were aware of the alleged
torture and breached a legal responsibility to prevent it. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7).
D.

Due Process
Finally, Alonzo-Rivera argues the IJ deprived her of her rights to effective

assistance of counsel and a fundamentally fair hearing by scheduling the merits
hearing only 35 days after she filed her I-589. Although the IJ did grant a oneweek continuance, Alonzo-Rivera asserts she still did not have sufficient time to
obtain additional corroborating evidence and seek counsel so she could present
clearer, more cohesive testimony.
Aliens in removal proceedings are entitled to due process of law under the
Fifth Amendment. Frech v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 491 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007).
To establish a due process violation, an alien must show she suffered substantial
prejudice from the alleged violation. Id. An alien may demonstrate substantial
prejudice by showing the outcome of the proceeding would have been different
absent the alleged violation. Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 534 (11th Cir.
2013).
Alonzo-Rivera has not demonstrated she was denied due process by the IJ’s
scheduling of the merits hearing, because she has not shown substantial prejudice
24

Case: 15-12382

Date Filed: 05/20/2016

Page: 25 of 25

resulted from the alleged violation. Frech, 491 F.3d at 1281. Alonzo-Rivera does
not identify on appeal any additional corroborating evidence she would have
obtained and presented if the IJ had granted her request for a longer continuance.
Furthermore, although she asserts she would have been able to avoid confusion
concerning whether she sought assistance from a domestic-violence organization if
she had more time to seek counsel before the merits hearing, that alone is
insufficient to show the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. See
Cole, 712 F.3d at 534. Alonzo-Rivera’s testimony concerning the domesticviolence organization was only one of several portions of her testimony the IJ
found implausible; it was not the sole basis on which the IJ denied her asylum
application. Therefore, the IJ may still have denied her asylum application even if
her testimony about the domestic-violence organization had been clear.
Consequently, Alonzo-Rivera cannot show the outcome of the proceeding would
have been different if the IJ had granted her additional time to seek counsel before
the merits hearing. See Cole, 712 F.3d at 534.
III. CONCLUSION
We grant Alonzo-Rivera’s petition in part as to the first two claims on
appeal and remand to the agency to consider the entire record in reviewing her
asylum application. We deny the petition regarding Alonzo-Rivera’s other claims.
GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
25