Howard, Theodore Augustus Wiley Rein LLP 1776
K
Sreet, NW Washigton DC 20006
US Department of ustice
Executive Oce r Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals Oce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg P, Swte 2000 Fal Chrch Vrgnia 2204
OHS/ICE ffice of Chief Cousel WAS 1901 S. Be Sree, Suite 900 Arlingto VA 22202 Name: H-C, C A 702 Dae of this notice 5/4/2017
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decson and order in the above-rerenced case. Enclosre
Pl Mb: G, A J y, Edwd F. d Ck y
Sincerely,
J .
l'J
J
�·
(·
Cynthia
L
Crosby Actng Chief Cerk
k
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
I m m i r a n t & R e f u e e A p p e l l a t e C e n t e r , L L C| w w w . i r a c . n e t
Cite as: C-A-H-C-, AXXX XXX 702 (BIA May 4, 2017)
.
U.. Dpartmnt of Justic
Executive Oce r Immiation Review Decision of the Board of mmiation Appeals Fals Church, Virginia
22041
File: 702 -lington, VA Date: In re: C HC N REMOVAL PROCEEDNGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Theodore A Howard, Esquire ON BEHAF OF HS Nicholas J. Bolzman Assistant hief Counsel CHARGE:
MAY
-
4 iJ17
Notice: Sec 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I& N Act [8 U.S.C.
§
182(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being amied or poled APPLCATON: Asylum, witolding of remova, Convention Against Torture The respondent, a native d citizen of Honduras, appeals the miation Judge's August 21, 216, decision denying his application r asylum, witolding of removal, d protection under the Convention Against Torure ("CAT).
See
sections 28(b )(1 )(A) d 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immiation and Nationaity Act, 8 U.SC.
§§
1158(b)()(A), 123(b)(3)(A); 8 CFR.
§§
120816(c), 128.18. The Department of Homeld Security ("HS) opposes the appea The appeal will be sustained We review r clear eor the ndings of ct, including the deteination of credibility, made by the mmiation Judge 8 C.FR.
§
1003(d)(3)(i). We review de novo all other issues, including questions of law, judent d discretion 8 CF R
§
1003 .1 ( d)(3 )(ii).
The respondent's request r reief d protection is based on a claim at he was and wi be persecuted by gg members in Honduras (I.J at 2). The respondent claims that when he was approximate 12 years od his mother kicked him out of the house d he was rced to ive on the streets (.J. at 2). He was ken in d cared r by a oup of older boys, who were also homeless (J. at 2). The respondent later leed tt ese individuals were gang members (.J. at 2). n exchange r the care that he received, the respondent perrmed vors r the boys like buying od and sodas (.J. at 2) Aer a while, the respondent wa asked to perform other, more involved, tasks like aering them when police were neb and delivering packages or them (J. at 2). The respondent later leed that the packages contained mariuana and money om extortion activities (.J. at 23)
1
We acowledge the eors of the additional attoeys listed on the respondent's brief, s well as the brief of amici curiae.
I m m i r a n t & R e f u e e A p p e l l a t e C e n t e r , L L C| w w w . i r a c . n e t
Cite as: C-A-H-C-, AXXX XXX 702 (BIA May 4, 2017)
,
702 Out of conce about the illegality of the groups activities d the increasing reliztion that the individuals were gg members, or involved in gg activity, the respondent tried to escape (IJ at 3). However, the gg members und him and upon his re, ey beat hm "severely to teach m a "lesson (IJ at 3) Wen he was yes old, the respondent escaped the gang d ed to the Unted States aer he was asked to carry out a muder d resed (IJ at 3) The respondent assets that he never commited act of violence r the gang d was never directly involved i dug dealing or extorion (IJ at 2-3) The repondent was rested once dung his time working with the gg, along with ur other ndividuals, on their way to deliver extortion money (IJ at 3,
Ex
3, Tab A) He was inteogated, beaten by police ocers, d ultmately placed in a juvenile detenton faciliy (IJ at 3,
x.
3, Tab A) The respondent claims that he was never convicted or sentenced r comitting a cime in onduas (Resp Br at 8) The Iniation Judge und the repondent credible d und that he hd suciently cooborated s claim, but und he respondent statutorily ineligible r aylum and wiholding of removal under section 28(b)(2)(A)(iii) d 24(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, and also bred om wihholding of removal under the CAT, 8 CFR§ 20816(d)(2), because there were "serous reaons r believing hat he commted a serous nonpolitical crme' outside of the Unted States (IJ at (citing the aforementioned statory and reulatoy provisions)) He reasoned tt "the respondents paticipation in the drug trade by making deliveres nd his role n the extortion scheme were he crmes underpinnng te bar nd that the context d relationship to gang activities made the cimes paticularly serious (IJ at ) The Iiation Judge ackowledged the respondents young age d the pressures he endured om the gang, but und that he was precluded om taking such ctors into consideration in analyzing whether a serous nonpolitical crme had been committed (J at 7) The Immiation Judge did not address the merts of the respondents request r asylum and withholding of removal under the Act, but denied the respondents request r CAT protection on the merts (J at 8) On appeal, the respondent rgues that the Iiation Judge eed by not considering hs young age d the duess he experenced when nalyzing the serous nonpolitical crme question because both of these ctors render the activities he engaged in noncrmnal, or at least lessen the severt of the oense (Resp Br at 22) The respondent also gues that the Iiation Judge erred in nding that the ual activities the respondent engaged in were sucient to invoke the serious nonpolitical crme b, cause he did not directly engage in the dg trade or extotion eors and never resorted to violence (Resp Br at 720) The respondent d the HS have each raised guments related whether the Federal Juvenile Delinqueny Act ("FJDA), 18 USC §§ 50315042, should be used to determne whether the respondent's activities in ondua constitute a cme (Resp Br at 1415 (citing
Matter of Devison
22 I&N Dec 1362, 36566 (BIA 2000); HS Br at 3-5; Resp Reply Br at 20) Because we have resolved this mater on the bases aticulated below, we need not address the applicability of the FDA to resolve this matter
See ISv. Bagamasbad,
29 US 24, 25 (96) ("As a general rule couts and agencies are not required to make ndings on issues the decision of which is uecessy to the results they rech) 2
I m m i r a n t & R e f u e e A p p e l l a t e C e n t e r , L L C| w w w . i r a c . n e t
Cite as: C-A-H-C-, AXXX XXX 702 (BIA May 4, 2017)
Reward Your Curiosity
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.