Antonio Robleo-Morales v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-077-949 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000016632].. [16-1163]

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 9

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1163

ANTONIO ROBLERO-MORALES, a/k/a Everardo Valasquez-Reyes,
a/k/a Evrardo Valasquez-Reyes, a/k/a Ebelardo VelasquezReyes, a/k/a Antonio Roblero Morales,
Petitioner,
v.
DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Argued:

January 24, 2017

Decided:

February 3, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Bradley Bruce Banias, BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON, AND
HELMS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner.
Craig Alan
Newell, Jr., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
ON BRIEF: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Emily Anne
Radford, Assistant Director, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation
Counsel,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 9

PER CURIAM:
Antonio Roblero-Morales petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) order affirming the decision of the
Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny him relief from removal.

Roblero

contends that the IJ violated Roblero’s procedural due process
rights.

We deny the petition for review.

I.
On

or

around

September

13,

2013,

border

patrol

agents

apprehended Roblero, a citizen of Guatemala, when he attempted
to

enter

the

United

States

unlawfully.

The

Department

of

Homeland Security charged Roblero as removable, found that he
had a credible fear of persecution or torture, and issued him a
Notice

to

conceded

Appear.

At

removability

Roblero’s

but

sought

initial
relief

removal
from

hearing,

removal

on

he
the

bases of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
After receiving a two-month continuance to find counsel,
the IJ scheduled a second hearing.
informed

the

IJ

that

he

left

At this hearing, Roblero

Guatemala

because

gangs

“kept

extorting [him] all the time” and, subsequently, “wanted [him]
to work for them.”

After hearing this summary of Roblero’s

claim, the IJ granted him a second continuance.
the IJ told Roblero:
2

In doing so,

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 9

All right. Sir, I’m going to hear your case, but it’s
not a very strong case and the reason is because I
understand there’s a lot of gangs in Guatemala and
they try to extort money from people or try to recruit
people. That doesn’t provide a legal basis for you to
get asylum here in the United States.
But because
you’ve already filed an asylum application I’m going
to give you a hearing.
After the IJ gave Roblero the date for the next hearing,
Roblero asked the IJ if he could “fill out some things that [he]
left out on page 5” of his asylum application.
off-the-record

discussion

about

other

issues,

Following an
Roblero

again

asked to “complete page 5” so that it reflected his contention
that he fled Guatemala because gangs threatened to kill him.
The following discussion ensued:
MR. ROBLEO-MORALES [sic]:
When the official caught me in the desert I tried
to explain to him that I was afraid to go back to my
country, but they wouldn’t let me explain and he told
me he did not make the law.
JUDGE:
Okay. Well, sir, you filed an application for -saying you’re afraid of the gangs because they were
extorting money from you. Right?
MR. ROBLEO-MORALES [sic]:
That is true.
JUDGE:
And is that the reason why you’re afraid to go
back?
MR. ROBLEO-MORALES [sic]:

3

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 4 of 9

Yes.
Because they threatened me that they were
going to kill me, so I left running away from my
house.
JUDGE:
All right.
Well, sir, I’m going to hear your
case on July 31st. Okay. Do you have any questions?
MR. ROBLEO-MORALES [sic]:
No.
JUDGE:
All right.

I’ll see you on July 31st.

The IJ then adjourned the hearing without acting on Roblero’s
request to “complete” page 5.
The IJ held Roblero’s merits hearing, as scheduled, on July
31, 2014.

Roblero testified that he left his home in 2012

because of gang extortion.

He testified that the gang first

charged him 100 quetzales (the Guatemalan currency), which he
paid.

Next, the gang charged him 300 quetzales, and he paid

that as well.
Roblero

However, when the gang sought 400 quetzales,

refused.

The

gang

members

told

Roblero

that

if

he

refused to pay he would need to work for them to collect money
from other people.

Instead of complying, Roblero fled.

Roblero

acknowledged that while in Guatemala, gangs never harmed him,
but he testified that he knew “a lot of people who have lost
their lives for the same thing.”

4

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 5 of 9

Leaving his family behind, Roblero entered Mexico in April
2013.

He

remained

there

individuals kidnapped him.

for

five

months,

when

unknown

Roblero’s captors beat him and tried

to learn information about his family for extortionary purposes,
but he provided none.

After a month, Roblero’s captors released

him when they found information about another captive’s family.
Roblero

then

fled

to

the

United

States,

where

border

patrol

orally

denied

agents apprehended him.
At

the

conclusion

of

the

hearing,

the

IJ

Roblero’s asylum application on the ground that “being extorted
by gang members in Guatemala [was] not a basis for which [he]
could grant [Roblero] asylum.”

The IJ subsequently issued a

written decision further explaining his reasoning.

The IJ found

Roblero credible, but denied his application due to the lack of
proof of “the requisite nexus between the alleged persecution he
perceived in Guatemala and a statutorily protected ground.”

The

IJ pointed out that “merely being subject to extortion attempts
does not provide the required on account of grounds so as to be
eligible

for

asylum.”

The

IJ

also

denied

Roblero’s

other

grounds for relief.
Roblero, now with counsel, timely appealed to the Board.
He asserted that the IJ erred in not allowing him to amend his
asylum application, and that the IJ improperly prejudged his
case.

Roblero explained that, if permitted to do so, he would
5

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 6 of 9

have testified to “his status as a taxi driver” and “his direct
political actions against the criminal organizations and corrupt
government supporters.”
On January 19, 2016, the Board dismissed Roblero’s appeal.
The Board held that the IJ did not violate Roblero’s due process
rights because even though Roblero was not permitted to amend
his

asylum

application,

“he

was

provided

an

opportunity

to

present his claim during the hearing and has shown no prejudice
resulting from the Immigration Judge’s actions.”

Roblero timely

filed this Petition for Review of the Board’s Order.

II.
Roblero’s petition contends only that the IJ’s denial of
asylum violated his procedural due process rights.
due

process

claims

alleging

immigration context de novo.”
335 (4th Cir. 2012).

procedural

“We review

failings

in

the

Singh v. Holder, 699 F.3d 321,

Because the Board’s order combined its own

reasoning with the IJ’s, we review both orders.

Martinez v.

Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 n.1 (4th Cir. 2014).
To prevail, Roblero must prove both that the IJ’s actions
rendered the proceedings “fundamentally unfair,” and that the
defect the IJ introduced into the proceedings “prejudiced the
outcome of the case.”
Cir. 2008).

Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th

To show prejudice, Roblero must demonstrate that
6

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 7 of 9

“the defect, in retrospect in [this] specific case, was ‘likely
to impact the results of the proceeding.’”

Id. (quoting Rusu v.

INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2002)).

Roblero maintains

that the IJ improperly prevented him from amending his asylum
application to specify his grounds for removal and that the IJ
prejudged his case.

The Government argues that, assuming the IJ

erred, Roblero cannot demonstrate prejudice.

We consider each

of Roblero’s arguments in turn, recognizing that due process
mandates only “a meaningful opportunity to present [a] claim,” a
requirement falling short of an “obligation to ensure . . . a
meaningful presentation.”

Rusu, 296 F.3d at 324.
A.

Roblero

contends

that

the

IJ’s

refusal

to

allow

him

to

amend his application prejudiced him because it precluded the
development of a full record.

This failure, Roblero claims,

prevented him from explaining the nexus between his persecution
and his membership in a protected class.
The IJ, however, asked several questions that gave Roblero
an opportunity to provide a further explanation of his claim.
These open-ended inquiries included questions such as “Why did
you leave Guatemala the last time?”; “What was the reason you
left your home country in 2012?”; “Sir, while we were off the
record you indicated you wanted to say something.

7

What is it

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 8 of 9

you wanted to tell the Court?”; and “Anything else you want to
tell me?”
These questions gave Roblero the opportunity to explain the
full nature of his claim.
specified

the

protected

In response to them, Roblero never

group

to

which

he

claimed

to

be

a

member.

The record contains no indication that the IJ prevented

Roblero

from

application,

providing
or

that

testimony
Roblero

beyond

refrained

the

content

from

of

his

offering

any

testimony out of a fear that the IJ would not allow it.
Given this record, Roblero cannot show prejudice.

Not only

did the IJ offer him a chance to put into the record anything he
wished, but there is no indication that Roblero had any evidence
that would entitle him to relief.

We thus have no basis on

which to hold that the IJ’s failure to permit him to amend his
asylum application prejudiced Roblero.
B.
Roblero’s contention that the IJ prejudged his case also
fails.

He asserts that this prejudgment was evidenced by the

IJ’s remark that Roblero did not have a strong case and the IJ’s
assertedly

preconceived

notion

that

gangs

in

Guatemala

frequently try to extort and recruit individuals for money.
The record demonstrates that in fact Roblero’s case was not
a strong one and that the IJ denied Roblero’s application not
because

of

a

belief

about

the
8

ubiquity

of

Guatemalan

gangs’

Appeal: 16-1163

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 9 of 9

extortion efforts, but because, as a matter of law, this motive
did not implicate Roblero’s status as a member of any protected
group.

Roblero provides no authority for the position that this

legal conclusion is wrong.

C.f. Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159,

167 (4th Cir. 2012) (“In sum, the BIA’s conclusion that Zelaya’s
proposed social group of young Honduran males who refuse to join
MS-13, have notified the police of MS-13’s harassment tactics,
and

have

qualify

an
as

identifiable
a

particular

tormentor
social

within

group

the

within

gang

the

does

INA

is

not
not

manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion.”).
Accordingly, we cannot hold that any prejudgment by the IJ
prejudiced Roblero’s case.

III.
Since

Roblero

cannot

demonstrate

that

any

of

the

IJ’s

purported errors altered the outcome of the proceedings, his due
process

challenge

fails.

For

the

foregoing

reasons,

the

petition for review is
DENIED.

9