Filed: Nov. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: MS-13 gang. These, cases are not relevant here because Mr. Martinezs testimony, contained self-evident discrepancies about his dates of entry into, the United States and because the IJ allowed counsel to seek, clarification during further questioning. See Seng v. Holder, 584 F.3d 13, 19, (1st Cir.
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 13-1337
ELISEO ESTEBAN MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Howard, Ripple* and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
Timothy J. Nutter, on brief for petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, and Jamie M. Dowd, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
Immigration Litigation, and Dana M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.
November 4, 2013
*
Of the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Esteban Martinez, a native
and citizen of Guatemala, was refused entry into Canada from the
United States. He was taken into United States custody, where he
admitted to a Border Patrol agent that he was in the United States
illegally to make money for his family. Mr. Martinez later sought
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that
he was likely to be tortured by gang members if he were returned to
Guatemala. At a hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”), the
Department of Homeland Security (“Department” or “DHS”)1 contested
Mr. Martinez’s claims. The IJ found that Mr. Martinez was not
credible and, consequently, denied relief and ordered removal. The
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) dismissed his
appeal.2 Mr. Martinez now petitions for review of the decision of
the Board.3 Because the administrative record does not require the
conclusion that Mr. Martinez is credible and because the Board did
not commit legal error in denying his request for relief under the
CAT, we deny the petition for review.
1
For ease of reading, we use the terms “Department” or “DHS”
as inclusive of its predecessor entities, including the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, as well as its current subdivisions,
including the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
2
The Board had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3),
(9). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g).
3
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).
-2-
I
BACKGROUND
A. Mr. Martinez’s Entry into Custody
On April 14, 2007, Mr. Martinez was traveling with others
to a church conference in North Carolina from Massachusetts when
the vehicle in which he was riding became lost. Traveling north on
an interstate highway, rather than south, it came to the United
States-Canadian border. The occupants were refused entry into
Canada and, upon attempting to reenter the United States, were
taken into United States custody. Mr. Martinez gave a sworn
statement to a United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
official on a Form I-877, in which he stated that he is a citizen
of Guatemala who had entered the United States illegally by
crossing the Mexican border in February 2002. He also admitted
that he had attempted to enter the United States illegally three
times before his most recent entry.4 Mr. Martinez explained that
he had entered the United States to earn income for his family.
Mr. Martinez did not sign his Form I-877.
In removal proceedings following his apprehension at the
Canadian border, Mr. Martinez filed an application for withholding
4
Mr. Martinez stated that he had been “encountered at least
three times by U.S. Border Patrol and returned to Mexico all three
times” though he “was never detained.”
-3-
of removal on September 20, 2007.5 An IJ held a hearing on
Mr. Martinez’s application on October 12, 2010. Mr. Martinez was
represented by counsel at the hearing and was the only witness to
testify. He ultimately presented two versions of the relevant
events–one in his application and initial testimony before the IJ,
and the other in testimony on redirect following cross-examination
by the Department.
B. Mr. Martinez’s Initial Account of Events
Mr. Martinez’s application for relief under the CAT,
signed under penalty of perjury, asked him to list each entry he
had made into the United States. He listed only one entry, on
February 2, 2002, which he had made by crossing the Mexican border
near San Ysidro, California. Mr. Martinez claimed that he left
Guatemala after having been threatened and attacked by gang members
there. At trial, Mr. Martinez repeated that he had entered the
United States in 2002. He stated that he had not returned to
Guatemala after leaving that country in January 2002. Mr. Martinez
also stated in his application that he had been arrested only
once–for driving without a license in Massachusetts in 2004.
5
Though he now seeks protection under the CAT, Mr. Martinez
also applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). He later acknowledged that
his asylum claim was not timely and that he was seeking withholding
of removal only under the CAT, not the Immigration and Nationality
Act. See A.R. at 65.
-4-
On his application and in his initial testimony,
Mr. Martinez described a series of threats and attacks against him
by gang members. He stated that the attacks had begun when he was
waiting alone in a truck in Guatemala City in January 2001 while
working as a loader for a potato farmer. Four heavily tattooed men
with guns and knives had approached him and attempted to take the
truck, but Mr. Martinez had resisted. The men then removed him
from the truck and began beating him. They threatened that he
either could give them the truck or join their criminal activities
by becoming part of their gang, the Mara Salvatrucha (“MS-13”).
After he refused, they beat him until he could not stand and then
left him with a warning that they would return to hear his
response.
Continuing his account, Mr. Martinez stated that, three
days later, the same four men had attacked him while he was waiting
alone in the truck in a parking lot near the potato warehouse where
he worked in Guatemala City. When he again refused to join their
gang, they beat him over the head with a pistol and threatened to
kill him. The men kicked and beat him on the ground to the point
that Mr. Martinez lost consciousness. When Mr. Martinez returned
home, he discovered that the men had been there looking for him.
His father falsely had claimed to the men that he did not know
Mr. Martinez’s location.
-5-
The next day, the four men approached Mr. Martinez while
he was walking home from work. After he refused to join the gang,
they beat and kicked him. They also instructed him to meet them in
a nearby village, Aldea Ceresos, if he wanted to avoid further
attacks. Mr. Martinez instead remained inside his home for three
weeks out of fear.
Mr. Martinez then ventured out to a festival in a nearby
village, Aldea Villanueva, with three friends.6 The four men
located him in the crowd, pointed a gun at him and took him from
the festival to a dump area where they began beating him once more.
During the beating, one man cut Mr. Martinez’s hand with a knife.7
Mr. Martinez threatened to report the men to the police, and they
beat him until he lost consciousness. After a group of ten to
fifteen people began approaching to see what was happening, the
four men left. Mr. Martinez’s friends then brought him to the San
Marcos hospital where he spent two days recovering from his
injuries. His hospital stay was in February 2001.
Mr. Martinez reported that he was afraid for his life
after his hospitalization and remained inside his home for three
months. During that time, the men asked for him at his home, but
6
In an affidavit attached to his application, Mr. Martinez
remembered that only three days passed between the attack and the
festival, not three weeks.
7
In his affidavit, Mr. Martinez stated that his wrist and
knee were cut during the attack, not his hand.
-6-
they were told he was not there. In May 2001, he ventured out to
a marketplace with a friend, where the four men found him and
pulled him from the crowd. One of the men pointed a gun at
Mr. Martinez and the men beat him until a crowd began to notice
them.
Two weeks later, in June 2001, the four men came to
Mr. Martinez’s home while his parents were away. They threatened
to kill him or his family if he did not join them. Mr. Martinez
filed a complaint with the police the day after this encounter. As
evidence of this event, he submitted with his application a police
report dated June 12, 2001, which noted that Mr. Martinez had
received threats from MS-13 gang members while leaving work, that
his right hand was injured and that the gang members had attempted
to extort money from him.8 In an affidavit attached to his
application, Mr. Martinez reported that the police were
unsuccessful in their attempts to question the perpetrators.
Three weeks after Mr. Martinez filed his police report,
his father was robbed and beaten by members of the gang who had
learned about the report. The men told Mr. Martinez’s father that
they would continue beating him and would kidnap other family
members if Mr. Martinez did not join them. Following his father’s
8
The police report did not mention the alleged encounter at
Mr. Martinez’s home.
-7-
advice, Mr. Martinez then decided to come to the United States. He
left Guatemala “shortly thereafter.”9
Mr. Martinez stated in his application that he had left
Guatemala on January 5, 2002, and he had been warned that, if he
returned to Guatemala, he would be killed. He testified that he
finally was able to get into the United States in February 2002,
where he remained until he was taken into custody in 2007.
Mr. Martinez asserted that the police in Guatemala could not
protect him from torture by the gang because the police lacked
resources and capabilities. Mr. Martinez contended that the
ability of the gangs in Guatemala to hurt him is evidenced by their
past attacks on him.
In addition to the evidence submitted with his
application and his own testimony before the IJ, Mr. Martinez
offered a letter from his father dated January 27, 2009. In that
letter, Mr. Martinez’s father, Julian Esteban Chavez, stated that
Mr. Martinez had been threatened and persecuted by members of the
MS-13 gang. Mr. Chavez further stated that Mr. Martinez had left
Guatemala in order to escape the gang and that returning there
would threaten Mr. Martinez’s safety.
9
A. at 114.
-8-
C. Mr. Martinez’s New Version of Events on Redirect
During cross-examination, DHS confronted Mr. Martinez
with evidence that he had committed a motor vehicle violation,
driving without a license, in September 2001. DHS asked
Mr. Martinez how he could have a criminal record in the United
States from 2001 if he first entered the country in February 2002.
Mr. Martinez then admitted that he had been arrested for driving
without authorization in 2001. When DHS again asked how he could
have committed a motor vehicle violation in September 2001 if he
first had entered the United States in 2002, Mr. Martinez stated
that he had not understood the question.
During redirect from his attorney, Mr. Martinez offered
a different account of events than the one he initially presented.
He testified that he had entered the United States twice before
February 2002. The first time, in December 2000, he entered the
United States from Mexico but was apprehended by border patrol
agents near the border and was sent back to Mexico. Mr. Martinez
then remained briefly in Mexico before returning to his home in
Guatemala, where the gang began harassing him in January 2001.
After his encounters with the gang, Mr. Martinez entered
the United States illegally in July 2001. He remained there until
November 2001. Mr. Martinez testified that he had decided to
return to Guatemala after his September 2001 arrest for a motor
vehicle violation because he was “ignorant about the way things
-9-
work[]” in the United States and “scared.”10 He left the United
States in November 2001 and went to Mexico. Mr. Martinez spent a
few weeks in Mexico to earn money to reenter the United States,
then returned to Guatemala “to make more money.”11
Mr. Martinez testified that he did not mention his
entries before 2002 in his application and initial testimony
because he thought that only his most recent entry was “permanent”
and therefore relevant.12 He attributed his earlier inconsistent
responses to a “misunderstanding” of “how things work here and what
they mean when they’re asking certain questions.”13
D. The IJ and BIA Decisions
On October 12, 2010, the IJ issued an oral decision
denying Mr. Martinez’s application for relief and ordering him
removed to Guatemala. The IJ concluded that the contradictions and
omissions in Mr. Martinez’s submissions and testimony evidenced he
was not credible. The IJ noted that after being taken into
custody, Mr. Martinez stated that he had entered the United States
to earn income rather than to escape a threat in Guatemala. The IJ
also observed that Mr. Martinez did not reveal that he had first
10
Id. at 86.
11
Id. at 87. The record does not explain why Mr. Martinez
chose to leave the United States but then began saving money to
reenter it.
12
Id. at 88.
13
Id. at 87-88.
-10-
entered the United States before February 2002 in his application
or his initial testimony; Mr. Martinez only admitted to prior
entries after being confronted with contradictory evidence. The IJ
found that Mr. Martinez’s voluntary return to Guatemala in November
2001, after the alleged gang attacks had occurred, undermined his
assertion that he feared being tortured or killed if he returned to
Guatemala. The IJ concluded that Mr. Martinez had not met his
burden of establishing a clear probability that he would be
tortured by groups that the government of Guatemala is unable to
control if he were returned.
The BIA dismissed Mr. Martinez’s appeal on February 14,
2013. The BIA determined that the IJ had not clearly erred in its
adverse credibility finding because Mr. Martinez testified that he
had fled Guatemala to escape a criminal gang but, on his Form
I-877, he had stated that he entered the United States to work and
make money. The BIA further determined that Mr. Martinez had not
offered a persuasive explanation when confronted during
cross-examination with inconsistencies between his actual history
and his sworn Form I-877 statement and his testimony.
Mr. Martinez timely sought review in this court.
-11-
II
DISCUSSION
As this case comes to us,14 Mr. Martinez presents two
issues for our decision. First, he submits that the Board’s
determination that he is not credible is not supported by
substantial evidence. Second, he contends that the Board erred in
determining that he had failed to meet his burden of demonstrating
that he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the
Guatemalan government. He makes clear, however, that this second
point is contingent on our accepting his credibility argument.
A.
Mr. Martinez seeks relief under the CAT. An applicant
for CAT protection “must bear the burden to prove, by objective
evidence, that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
if he is deported.” Elien v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392, 398 (1st Cir.
2004) (emphasis omitted). “Torture is defined as any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person . . . 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. § 1208.18(a)(1). Torture does
14
Mr. Martinez has conceded that he cannot establish
eligibility for asylum or for withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
-12-
not include “lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment.” Id. § 1208.18(a)(2).
We review for substantial evidence the Board’s
determination that Mr. Martinez was not credible. See Liu Jin Lin
v. Holder, 723 F.3d 300, 305 (1st Cir. 2013). Under the
substantial evidence standard, the decision of the Board “must be
upheld if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative
evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Immigration &
Naturalization Serv. v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Reversal is appropriate only
where “a reasonable factfinder would have to” reach a contrary
conclusion. Id.; see also Aguilar-Solis v. Immigration &
Naturalization Serv.,
168 F.3d 565, 571 (1st Cir. 1999)
(instructing courts to accord “significant respect” to a hearing
officer’s credibility determination “as long as the findings on
which it rests have sufficiently sturdy roots in the administrative
record”).15
15
The Government contends that we should review the decision
of the Board and the IJ together, citing Tobon-Marin v. Mukasey,
512 F.3d 28, 30 (1st Cir. 2008). See Gov’t Br. 12. Tobon-Marin
instructs us to review both decisions when “the BIA adopted and
supplemented the IJ’s opinion with its own substantive gloss.”
Tobon-Marin, 512 F.3d at 30. That is not an apt description of the
record in this case. The BIA rendered its own decision. It
affirmed, but did not adopt, the decision of the IJ. The Board’s
determination on these issues therefore is the final agency
decision under review. See Pulisir v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 302,
307-08 (1st Cir. 2008); see also Lin v. Mukasey,
521 F.3d 22, 26
(1st Cir. 2008) (noting that, where the BIA does not adopt the IJ’s
opinion, we review the ruling of the BIA standing alone).
-13-
A specific statutory provision further guides our
assessment of whether the “roots” of the assessment are
“sufficiently sturdy.” Section 1158(b) of Title 8 of the United
States Code governs adverse credibility determinations for claims,
such as this one, that were filed after May 11, 2005. REAL ID Act
of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 302, 303
(codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The statute requires
an immigration fact-finder to base credibility determinations on
the totality of the circumstances:
Considering the totality of the circumstances,
and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base
a credibility determination on the demeanor,
candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or
witness, the inherent plausibility of the
applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency
between the applicant’s or witness’s written and
oral statements (whenever made and whether or not
under oath, and considering the circumstances under
which the statements were made), the internal
consistency of each such statement, the consistency
of such statements with other evidence of record
(including the reports of the Department of State
on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or
falsehoods in such statements, without regard to
whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any
other relevant factor.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Jianli Chen v. Holder, 703
F.3d 17, 22 (1st Cir. 2012) (noting that courts should “proceed to
evaluate the adverse credibility determinations under these
guidelines and in light of the totality of the circumstances”).
-14-
B.
Our examination of the record reveals that the Board’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence. Mr. Martinez’s
own testimony on redirect contradicts his application and his
initial testimony. After being taken into custody, Mr. Martinez
stated that he entered the United States to earn income. Later he
claimed to have entered to escape a gang in Guatemala. He wrote in
his application and testified before the IJ that he entered the
United States in 2002, but then admitted after cross-examination
that he also entered the United States in 2000 and 2001. When
questioned, he did not provide a persuasive explanation for why he
voluntarily returned to Guatemala in November 2001 after fleeing
Guatemala in July 2001 because of threats and beatings by the gang.
Mr. Martinez cites no applicable First Circuit precedent for his
assertion that the Board erred in finding Mr. Martinez not
credible.16
Mr. Martinez attempts to explain the inconsistencies in
his submissions and testimony as simple misunderstandings resulting
from confusion. He claims that he initially disclosed only his
16
Mr. Martinez cites several cases from other circuits
holding that an immigration judge should seek clarification before
basing an adverse credibility determination on a latent discrepancy
rather than a self-evident discrepancy. See Pet’r’s Br. 15. These
cases are not relevant here because Mr. Martinez’s testimony
contained self-evident discrepancies about his dates of entry into
the United States and because the IJ allowed counsel to seek
clarification during further questioning.
-15-
February 2002 entry because he believed it was his only permanent,
and therefore relevant, entry. Although questions certainly may be
misinterpreted, his explanation is not so compelling that the
fact-finder was required to credit it. See Rivas-Mira v. Holder,
556 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that an IJ was not required
to accept a petitioner’s unconvincing attempts to explain
significant anomalies).17 Mr. Martinez was represented by counsel
before the IJ and his testimony evidences no general difficulty
understanding and responding to questions. Mr. Martinez’s many
missed opportunities to disclose his earlier entries into the
United States also demonstrate more than mere confusion,
particularly because his affidavit and initial testimony covered a
time period that included his 2001 entry into the United States.
It is clear on the face of the record that the BIA and IJ weighed
and rejected the possibility that Mr. Martinez’s inconsistencies
were the result of mere confusion about the import of questions.
Mr. Martinez also contends that the BIA and IJ erred in
giving undue weight to his unsigned Form I-877, which he completed
17
See also Wen Feng Liu v. Holder, 714 F.3d 56, 60-61 (1st
Cir. 2013) (affirming lack of credibility finding where petitioner
added details to his testimony only when confronted by a change in
the law); Qin v. Ashcroft,
360 F.3d 302, 308 (1st Cir. 2004)
(holding that “the IJ was entitled to, and did, disbelieve” a
petitioner’s assertions). Even statements that are not intended to
mislead can lack credibility. See Seng v. Holder,
584 F.3d 13, 19
(1st Cir. 2009) (“A statement may be untrue (and, thus, not
credible) because of lack of knowledge, faulty memory, garbled
expression, or other reasons, notwithstanding the declarant’s
intent to speak the truth.”).
-16-
at the border.18 Mr. Martinez’s argument turns on the fact that the
Form I-877 statement was not signed by him or any witness.
Mr. Martinez did not make this argument before the IJ or the Board,
and it is therefore waived.19 In any event, the REAL ID Act permits
a fact-finder to weigh even informal statements.20 We note that,
although Mr. Martinez did not sign the statement, the interview was
conducted with Mr. Martinez under oath and with the assistance of
an interpreter. The immigration officer who conducted the
interview did sign the form. The IJ and the BIA knew the
circumstances of Mr. Martinez’s Form I-877 from the context of his
testimony before the IJ. Mr. Martinez did not deny that he had
told a Border Patrol agent that he entered the United States to
earn income. He also admitted that he returned voluntarily to
Guatemala in late 2001 in spite of the gang’s alleged threats
toward him earlier that year. The BIA’s reliance on Mr. Martinez’s
Form I-877 was not excessive in light of these circumstances.
We must conclude that the Board’s decision to dismiss
Mr. Martinez’s appeal of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
is supported by substantial evidence. In light of this
18
Pet’r’s Br. 15-16.
19
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Olujoke v. Gonzáles, 411 F.3d
16, 22-23 (1st Cir. 2005).
20
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Jianli Chen v.
Holder, 703 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 2012) (noting that “[i]t is
normally enough if the IJ reasonably finds a proffered piece of
evidence to be reliable and its use to be fundamentally fair”).
-17-
determination, we cannot accept, as Mr. Martinez frankly concedes,
his second contention that he has met his burden of proof for
relief under the CAT. See Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1, 5 (1st
Cir. 2007).
Conclusion
The conclusion of the BIA that Mr. Martinez was not
credible is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the
agency’s decision denying his application for relief under the CAT
must stand.
PETITION DENIED.
-18-
