FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO RAJIB FLORES MOLINA, Nos. 19-73028 Petitioner, 20-71774 v. Agency No. A215-879-596 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 14, 2021 Pasadena, California Filed June 13, 2022 Before: Richard A. Paez and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges, and Edward R. Korman, * District Judge. Opinion by Judge Paez; Concurrence by Judge Korman; Dissent by Judge VanDyke * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 2 FLORES MOLINA V. GARLAND SUMMARY ** Immigration The panel (1) granted Mario Rajib Flores Molina’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and related relief, and remanded, holding that the record compelled a finding that Flores Molina’s past experiences constituted persecution and that the Board erred in its analysis of other issues; and (2) dismissed as moot Flores Molina’s petition for review of the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen. Flores Molina was publicly marked as a terrorist and threatened with torture over social media by Nicaraguan government operatives, repeatedly verbally threatened with death by supporters of the Ortega regime, received a death threat painted on his home by masked men likely affiliated with the government, and received a second death threat— this time during a direct confrontation—after he was seriously beaten by six members of the Sandinista Youth. Flores Molina also had a near confrontation with an armed paramilitary group that located him at a hideaway. The panel explained that the threats were credible given the history and context of the Ortega regime’s killing and torture of its political opponents. The panel observed that this court has stated in various opinions that both the de novo and the substantial evidence standard of review apply to the question of whether ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. FLORES MOLINA V. GARLAND 3 particular acts constitute persecution. The panel wrote that it need not address the nuances of the two standards, or which standard should apply, because the harm Flores Molina suffered rose to the level of persecution under the more deferential substantial evidence standard of review. The panel held that the record compelled the conclusion that Flores Molina’s experiences in Nicaragua constituted persecution. First, the panel wrote that this court has consistently recognized that being forced to flee from one’s home in the face of an immediate threat of severe physical violence or death is squarely encompassed within the rubric of persecution. Here, Flores Molina was forced to flee three separate times after being personally targeted with violence and threatened with death for his political views. Second, the panel wrote that this court has repeatedly held that threats may be compelling evidence of past persecution, particularly when …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals