NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 03 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS IGINIO CRUZ CALLES, AKA Higinio No. 16-72181 Cruz Calles, Agency No. A075-529-054 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 10, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, CALLAHAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Iginio Cruz Calles is a native and citizen of El Salvador. He petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and we grant his petition. We determine * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. the BIA’s conclusion that Cruz Calles did not suffer harm rising to the level of persecution is not supported by substantial evidence. We remand to the BIA. We review for “substantial evidence the BIA’s decision that an applicant failed to establish eligibility for asylum.” Njuguna v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under the substantial evidence standard, the court upholds the BIA’s determination unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the IJ found Cruz Calles credible and the BIA did not disturb this finding, we take Cruz Calles’ testimony and presentation as true. See Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, 1166 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). To qualify for humanitarian asylum, Cruz Calles must show both (1) past persecution and (2) “a reasonable possibility that [he] may suffer other serious harm upon removal to” El Salvador. Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B). To show past persecution, Cruz Calles must establish that “(1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 On the first prong, the BIA found the harms Cruz Calles suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. Persecution is not defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2004). There is no set of criteria to define persecution, so the quantum of harm that qualifies as persecution is measured in relation to past cases. See Navas v. I.N.S., 217 F.3d 646, 655, n.9 (9th Cir. 2000). “An applicant may suffer persecution because of the cumulative impact of several incidents even where no single incident would constitute persecution on its own.” Baballah, 367 F.3d at 1076. Cruz Calles credibly put forth evidence of the following harms: (1) his family was displaced from the coffee farm where they lived; (2) three of his cousins were extrajudicially killed; and (3) in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals