You are on page 1of 18
 
Howard, Theodore Augustus Wiley Rein LLP 1776
K
Sreet, NW Washigton DC 20006
US Department of ustice
Executive Oce r Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals Oce of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg P, Swte 2000 Fal Chrch Vrgnia 2204
OHS/ICE ffice of Chief Cousel WAS 1901 S. Be Sree, Suite 900 Arlingto VA 22202 Name: H-C, C A 702 Dae of this notice 5/4/2017
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decson and order in the above-rerenced case. Enclosre
Pl Mb: G, A J y, Edwd F. d Ck y
Sincerely,
J .
l'J
J
�·
Cynthia
L
Crosby Actng Chief Cerk
 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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index/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.. Dpartmnt of Justic
Executive Oce r Immiation Review Decision of the Board of mmiation Appeals Fals Church, Virginia
22041
File: 702 -lington, VA Date: In re: C HC N REMOVAL PROCEEDNGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Theodore A Howard, Esquire ON BEHAF 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 amied or poled APPLCATON: Asylum, witolding of remova, Convention Against Torture The respondent, a native d citizen of Honduras, appeals the miation Judge's August 21, 216, decision denying his application r asylum, witolding of removal, d protection under the Convention Against Torure ("CAT).
See
sections 28(b )(1 )(A) d 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immiation and Nationaity Act, 8 U.SC.
§§
1158(b)()(A), 123(b)(3)(A); 8 CFR.
§§
120816(c), 128.18. The Department of Homeld Security ("HS) opposes the appea The appeal will be sustained We review r clear eor the ndings of ct, including the deteination of credibility, made by the mmiation Judge 8 C.FR.
§
1003(d)(3)(i). We review de novo all other issues, including questions of law, judent d discretion 8 CF R
§
1003 .1 ( d)(3 )(ii). The respondent's request r reief d protection is based on a claim at he was and wi be persecuted by gg members in Honduras (I.J at 2). The respondent claims that when he was approximate 12 years od 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 leed tt ese individuals were gang members (.J. at 2). n exchange r the care that he received, the respondent perrmed vors r the boys like buying od and sodas (.J. at 2) Aer a while, the respondent wa asked to perform other, more involved, tasks like aering them when police were neb and delivering packages or them (J. at 2). The respondent later leed that the packages contained mariuana and money om extortion activities (.J. at 23)
1
We acowledge the eors of the additional attoeys 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 groups activities d the increasing reliztion that the individuals were gg members, or involved in gg activity, the respondent tried to escape (IJ at 3). However, the gg members und him and upon his re, ey beat hm "severely to teach m a "lesson (IJ at 3) Wen he was  yes old, the respondent escaped the gang d ed to the Unted States aer he was asked to carry out a muder d resed (IJ at 3) The respondent assets that he never commited  act of violence r the gang d was never directly involved i dug dealing or extorion (IJ at 2-3) The repondent was rested once dung his time working with the gg, along with ur other ndividuals, on their way to deliver extortion money (IJ at 3,
Ex
3, Tab A) He was inteogated, beaten by police ocers, d ultmately placed in a juvenile detenton faciliy (IJ at 3,
x.
3, Tab A) The respondent claims that he was never convicted or sentenced r comitting a cime in onduas (Resp Br at 8) The Iniation Judge und the repondent credible d und that he hd suciently cooborated s claim, but und he respondent statutorily ineligible r aylum and wiholding of removal under section 28(b)(2)(A)(iii) d 24(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, and also bred om wihholding of removal under the CAT, 8 CFR§ 20816(d)(2), because there were "serous reaons r believing hat he commted a serous nonpolitical crme' outside of the Unted States (IJ at  (citing the aforementioned statory and reulatoy provisions)) He reasoned tt "the respondents paticipation in the drug trade by making deliveres nd his role n the extortion scheme were he crmes underpinnng te bar nd that the context d relationship to gang activities made the cimes paticularly serious (IJ at ) The Iiation Judge ackowledged the respondents 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 serous nonpolitical crme had been committed (J at 7) The Immiation Judge did not address the merts of the respondents request r asylum and withholding of removal under the Act, but denied the respondents request r CAT protection on the merts (J at 8) On appeal, the respondent rgues that the Iiation Judge eed by not considering hs young age d the duess he experenced when nalyzing the serous nonpolitical crme question because both of these ctors render the activities he engaged in noncrmnal, or at least lessen the severt of the oense (Resp Br at 22) The respondent also gues that the Iiation Judge erred in nding that the ual activities the respondent engaged in were sucient to invoke the serious nonpolitical crme b, cause he did not directly engage in the dg trade or extotion eors and never resorted to violence (Resp Br at 720) The respondent d the HS have each raised guments related whether the Federal Juvenile Delinqueny Act ("FJDA), 18 USC §§ 50315042, should be used to determne whether the respondent's activities in ondua constitute a cme (Resp Br at 1415 (citing
Matter of Devison
22 I&N Dec 1362, 36566 (BIA 2000); HS Br at 3-5; Resp Reply Br at 20) Because we have resolved this mater on the bases aticulated below, we need not address the applicability of the FDA to resolve this matter
 See ISv. Bagamasbad,
 29 US 24, 25 (96) ("As a general rule couts and agencies are not required to make ndings on issues the decision of which is uecessy to the results they rech) 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.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505