Keny Alvarez-Molina v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENY YAJAIRA ALVAREZ-MOLINA, No. 15-73134 AKA Keny Alvarez-Molina, Agency No. A200-881-871 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 4, 2018 Seattle, Washington Before: BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,** District Judge. Keny Yajaira Alvarez-Molina (“Alvarez”), native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. which affirmed an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Alvarez’s conviction for robbery under Indiana Code § 35-42-5-1 was a particularly serious crime barring her from relief from withholding of removal. See Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012). The BIA considered Alvarez’s age when she committed the offense and her role in the crime. After reviewing the circumstances of the crime, the BIA determined that, despite her young age at the time, she was a danger to the community. Nothing in the record suggests that the BIA’s decision was “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 2. Because we are unable to determine whether the BIA properly analyzed whether the government officials in Ahuachapán, El Salvador would acquiesce in acts of torture against Alvarez, we remand to the BIA to reconsider this issue. Our problem: Alverez presented credible testimony that, on one occasion, the police arrived at the scene when MS-13 members were beating her and her cousin. Instead of intervening in the altercation, the police waited until the perpetrators had 2 gone, and then threatened Alvarez and her cousin with further harm if they did not leave.1 Alvarez truthfully testified that the police did not respond to her and her cousin, because the police thought they were gang members. Alvarez’s testimony was also supported by (a) Alvarez’s expert’s testimony that “[t]he police are hesitant and sometimes not at all willing to intervene in any gang related activities and they would be most hesitant and least likely to intervene to protect a gang member” and the police are “only too happy to see gang members disposed of or eliminated”; and (b) the country reports that indicated that El Salvador “struggles with police and official corruption and ties to gangs and criminal activity” and “the police will murder suspected gang members with impunity.” After reviewing ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals