[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-12113 MAY 07, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A099-554-370
LEONEL EURO AYALA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 7, 2010)
Before PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,* District Judge.
PRYOR, Circuit Judge:
*
Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.
This petition for review presents the issue whether the Board of Immigration
Appeals gave reasoned consideration to the application for asylum and withholding
of removal of Leonel Euro Ayala, a native and citizen of Venezuela. Ayala, who is
homosexual and opposes the Chavez government, alleged that he had suffered past
persecution on account of his sexual orientation and political opinion. Both the
Board and the immigration judge credited Ayala’s testimony that in December
2004 several Venezuelan police officers assaulted him after he left a gay nightclub
in Caracas. Ayala testified that the police officers hit him, robbed him, handcuffed
him, detained him in a patrol car, placed a hood over his head, and forced him to
perform oral sex on one of the officers. The police officers threatened to arrest
Ayala for being homosexual and told Ayala “[t]hey could incarcerate [him] or
plant drugs in [his] house and that was all as a result of being queer.” An
immigration judge denied Ayala’s application for asylum and withholding of
removal, and the Board affirmed the decision.
The decision of the Board is riddled with error. The Board stated that it
agreed with the decision of the immigration judge that the mistreatment Ayala
suffered did not rise to the level of persecution, but the immigration judge made no
such ruling. The Board also found that Ayala had failed to prove that the police
officers who sexually assaulted him acted on account of a protected ground, but
neither the Board nor the immigration judge even mentioned the police officers’
2
slurs about Ayala’s homosexuality. The Board also found that Ayala failed to
prove that the government was unable to protect him even though Ayala suffered
mistreatment at the hands of police officers, not private actors. Because the Board
and the immigration judge failed to give reasoned consideration to Ayala’s
application, we grant Ayala’s petition for review, vacate the decision of the Board,
and remand to the Board for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
Ayala lawfully entered the United States on February 12, 2005, as a
nonimmigrant visitor. Ayala’s visa permitted him to remain in the United States
until August 11, 2005, but Ayala remained longer than permitted. On February 8,
2006, Ayala filed an application with the Department of Homeland Security
requesting asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture.
On March 14, 2006, the Department issued Ayala a notice to appear and
charged that Ayala was subject to removal because he remained in the United
States for a longer period than permitted by his visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). At
a hearing before the immigration judge, Ayala admitted the factual allegations in
the notice to appear and conceded that he was subject to removal, but he
resubmitted his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture. In his application, Ayala alleged that he had
3
suffered persecution on account of his political opinion and membership in a
particular social group. Ayala alleged that he was persecuted by his family
members, coworkers, and neighbors, as well as police officers and supporters of
President Hugo Chavez. The immigration judge held a hearing on the merits of
Ayala’s application on August 29, 2007.
Ayala’s written application and testimony at the hearing established that he
is a native and citizen of Venezuela. He is homosexual, and he was diagnosed as
having the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 1995. Ayala was an active
member of two organizations in Venezuela: Friends of Life, an organization that
educates Venezuelans about HIV, and Lambda Alliance, a group that fights
discrimination against “homosexuals, . . . transgenders, and bisexuals.”
Ayala identified as homosexual from an early age, but he hid his sexual
orientation from his family until he was about 30 years old. In 2000, Ayala’s
family learned about his sexual orientation from a family friend who had seen
Ayala at a “[g]ay party” in Caracas. Ayala’s family verbally harassed him about
his sexual orientation and rejected him.
Ayala began working at a telecommunications company in Caracas in 1990,
and Ayala’s coworkers learned that he was homosexual in 2003, when Ayala
marched in a gay pride parade that passed in front of his workplace. When Ayala
returned to work the day after the parade, he discovered that some of his job
4
responsibilities had been reassigned. Ayala’s coworkers verbally harassed him and
left “pictures of naked women on [his] desk with rude comments and insulting
notes.” Ayala had never experienced any problems at work before he marched in
the parade; in fact, he had been promoted several times.
Ayala complained about the discrimination to his manager, but his manager
responded that Ayala would not “be able to rise within the corporation” because he
“was homosexual and homosexuals [are] mentally deviated people.” Ayala’s
manager later transferred Ayala to a different department without his consent.
Ayala resigned from his position in August 2004 because he “was isolated and
discriminated [against] in every sense” and felt pressured to resign. Ayala tried to
find another job after he resigned from the telecommunications company, but he
was unsuccessful. According to Ayala, employers in Venezuela require applicants
to take an HIV test and refuse to hire applicants who test positive for HIV.
In September 2004, shortly after Ayala had resigned from his position at the
telecommunications company, two of his neighbors, Franklin and Vilmania Perez,
began harassing him. Mr. Perez was a director in the Bolivarian Circles, an
organization that supports President Chavez, and Mr. Perez had influence with the
police. The Perezes tampered with Ayala’s mail and insulted him. Mr. Perez told
Ayala that he “didn’t want to have a queer neighbor and let alone a squallad,” and
he warned Ayala “to not even look at him when [he] walk[s] through the
5
hallways.” Ayala testified that the term “squallad” is a derogatory term used to
refer to “people who are not in line with the politics of” President Chavez. Ayala
testified that he met “with members of the opposition in [his] house,” and he
“openly spoke against the government.”
On November 20, 2004, Mr. Perez assaulted Ayala as he came out of the
elevator. Mr. Perez told Ayala that “he did not want a queer living within the
compounds of his living quarters,” and he threw Ayala against a gate. Other
residents of the apartment building soon came outside, and Ayala was able to
escape to his apartment. Mr. Perez returned to his apartment “to get a weapon to
kill” Ayala and started beating on his door. Ayala and other residents of the
apartment building called the police, but the police never responded. Ayala never
went to the police station in person to make a report.
Ayala left his apartment later that night and stayed at the apartment of a
friend. Ayala never returned to his apartment; he asked a friend to retrieve his
belongings, and he moved to an apartment only about five to ten minutes away by
car. Ayala did not attempt to find an apartment more than five to ten minutes away
from the Perezes, nor did he attempt to relocate outside of Caracas.
On December 5, 2004, a group of police officers physically and sexually
assaulted Ayala as he was leaving a gay nightclub. Earlier that day, Ayala had
participated in a vigil to commemorate International AIDS Day. After the vigil,
6
Ayala went to the nightclub to meet his friends. His friends never arrived, so
Ayala left the nightclub and waited outside for a taxi. Several police officers
approached Ayala. The officers “threw [him] against the wall, pointed at [him]
with their weapons,” and took his wallet and the money inside the wallet. When
Ayala told the officers to return his money, one of the officers hit him in the
stomach. When Ayala asked the officers why they were detaining him and insisted
that he had done nothing wrong, the officers hit him again, handcuffed him, asked
for his home address, took his identification, and put him in the patrol car. The
officers “told [him] to shut up because [he] was queer and they could apply the
vagrancy laws.” Ayala “felt scared, very scared” and thought the officers “were
going to kill” him. The officers put a hood over Ayala’s head and drove him
around in their car. The officers eventually removed the hood and forced Ayala to
perform oral sex on one of the officers. After they forced Ayala to perform oral
sex, the officers drove to “a dark place” that resembled a “marketplace of some
sort” and left Ayala there. They told Ayala that “if [he] presented any kind of
denouncement or report they had [his] address,” and “[t]hey could incarcerate
[him] or plant drugs in [his] house and that was all as a result of being queer.”
Ayala never reported the incident because he feared that the officers would assault
him again or fulfill their threats.
7
On January 23, 2005, members of the Bolivarian Circles physically
assaulted Ayala after he participated in a march to protest the Chavez government.
Ayala testified that, during the march, he wore “a visor that had the slogan of the
opposition” and “carried the slogan of the opposition.” When the march ended,
Ayala took the train back to his neighborhood. Members of the Bolivarian Circles
approached Ayala when they saw his visor, physically assaulted him, and called
him “squallad” and “queer.” They took his cellular telephone, injured the left side
of his face, and caused him to bleed from his elbow. Ayala reported the incident to
police officers in a nearby patrol car, but they refused to help him. The officers
told Ayala “that’s what happened to all the squallad queers” and “[s]omething
worse than that should’ve happened for being a member of the government
opposition.”
After the attack, Ayala began receiving threatening phone calls. The callers
identified themselves as members of the Bolivarian Circles, said they knew where
Ayala lived, and told Ayala to “look out because [he] could end up with flies in
[his] mouth one morning.” Ayala never reported the phone calls to the authorities
because the police had mistreated him and he did not believe they would help him.
Ayala decided to move to the United States soon after he began receiving the
threatening calls.
8
Ayala now lives in Miami, where he works for a communications company.
He receives free health care from a government program at a hospital in Miami.
Ayala testified that, although he was able to obtain HIV medications in Venezuela
until 2001, Venezuela experienced a shortage of HIV medications after 2001.
Ayala denied coming to the United States to obtain better health care, but he
acknowledged that he would not have access to the same quality of health care in
Venezuela. Ayala also testified that he traveled to the United States for an eight-
day vacation in September 2004. Ayala testified that he did not seek asylum at that
time because “the situation was not as grave and [his] life was not in danger.”
To support his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture, Ayala submitted several documents about
conditions in Venezuela for homosexuals and political dissidents. Ayala submitted
articles and reports observing that homosexuals face discrimination in Venezuela.
He also submitted articles and reports describing a deterioration in the human
rights situation for political dissidents in Venezuela. Specifically, Ayala submitted
information from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Resource
Information Center, which reported that the Chavez administration “has
increasingly lost control of the radicals within the Bolivarian Circles and is unable
to prevent those elements from attacking and killing Chavez dissidents.”
9
Ayala also provided the immigration judge with the 2006 Venezuela
Country Report on Human Rights Practices prepared by the U.S. Department of
State. The Country Report stated that human rights problems in Venezuela
included “unlawful killings; disappearances reportedly involving security forces;
torture and abuse of detainees; . . . arbitrary arrests and detentions; [and] . . .
widespread corruption at all levels of government.” With respect to police forces,
the Country Report stated that “corruption was a major problem among all police
forces” and that “[i]mpunity, brutality, and other acts of violence were major
problems.” The Country Report also stated that, although the Venezuelan
government ordinarily respects the right to freedom of assembly, “[g]overnment
supporters sometimes disrupted marches and rallies.”
At the end of Ayala’s hearing before the immigration judge, the immigration
judge invited the parties to submit additional evidence about discrimination by the
Venezuelan government against homosexuals. The government submitted several
items. Among them were newspaper reports that discrimination against
homosexuals in Venezuela had declined, the Venezuelan government had allowed
thousands of homosexuals to march in gay pride parades without incident, and
President Chavez had stated publicly that “a big mistake had been made in 1999
during the National Constituent Assembly, when the rights of gays and lesbians
were left out of the new constitution.” The government also submitted a report
10
from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which stated that incidents of
violence against homosexuals by security forces had decreased, as had
discrimination against homosexuals by health centers.
The immigration judge denied Ayala’s application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration
judge found Ayala’s testimony credible and concluded that Ayala was a member of
a particular social group—that of HIV-positive homosexual men. The immigration
judge nonetheless denied Ayala’s application because Ayala had not established
past persecution on account of a protected ground or a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
The immigration judge’s decision about past persecution rested on several
findings. The immigration judge found that “[a]ll of the protestors, as well as the
neighbors who offered some resistance to [Ayala], cannot be considered by this
Court as taking actions which were inspired by government officials or acquiesced
to by government officials.” The immigration judge also found that there was no
evidence that the Bolivarian Circles are “hostile to gay rights in Venezuela.”
Regarding the incident where police officers forced Ayala to perform oral sex, the
immigration judge found that the incident was a “criminal act[] perpetrated by
individuals” and it “d[id] not appear to be the policy or process of a legitimately
established government.” The immigration judge continued, “Indeed, [Ayala]
11
could not associate the actions of these policemen with any prejudice or
discrimination extended toward gay men as a group, or toward him as an
individual, as a function of municipal or national government.” The immigration
judge never found that the mistreatment Ayala alleged was not severe enough to
constitute persecution.
As to the ruling that Ayala failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution, the immigration judge found that Ayala had not attempted to relocate
within Venezuela and that conditions for homosexuals in Venezuela had improved
during the presidency of Hugo Chavez. The immigration judge explained that
“many members of the same group to which [Ayala] belonged have remained [in
Venezuela] and have done so without difficulty.” The immigration judge rejected
the allegation that HIV-positive homosexuals are denied medical treatment and
found instead that “the gay community in Venezuela is, in fact, the recipient of free
medical treatment, however uneven that treatment may be.”
Ayala appealed the decision of the immigration judge to the Board of
Immigration Appeals. The Board affirmed the decision of the immigration judge
and issued a separate opinion. The Board agreed with the immigration judge that
“homosexuals make up a particular social group” and that Ayala is a member of
that group, but the Board also ruled that Ayala had failed to establish past
persecution on account of a protected ground. The Board, quoting Sepulveda v.
12
U.S. Attorney General, 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005), explained that
“‘persecution’ is an ‘extreme concept’ requiring ‘more than a few isolated
incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation’” and “agree[d] with the
Immigration Judge that the mistreatment [Ayala] described does not rise to the
level of persecution.” The Board also agreed with the immigration judge that there
was “insufficient evidence to establish that the policemen who robbed and sexually
assaulted [Ayala] were motivated to harm him on account of a protected ground,”
and that Ayala “failed to show the government would not protect him because he
never reported the incident.”
The Board also agreed with the immigration judge that Ayala had failed to
prove a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his sexual
orientation, HIV status, or political opinion. The Board explained, “[T]he
background evidence indicates that Venezuela’s gay community is a robust group
that frequently marches without disruption or disturbance, and that tolerance and
respect for the gay community in Venezuela is improving.” The Board also
concluded that the evidence Ayala had presented did not support a finding that
Ayala “would be denied medical care in Venezuela.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the decision of the Board and “the decision of the Immigration
Judge to the extent that the Board expressly adopted the opinion of the
13
Immigration Judge.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Board explicitly agreed
with several findings of the immigration judge, we review the decisions of both the
Board and the immigration judge as to those issues. We review legal
determinations de novo. Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir.
2006). We review administrative fact findings for substantial evidence, which is a
highly deferential standard. Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223,
1230 (11th Cir. 2007). Under the substantial evidence test, we must “affirm the
decision of the Immigration Judge if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva, 448 F.3d at 1236
(internal quotation marks omitted). We “may not reweigh the evidence from
scratch,” and we may reverse “only when the record compels a reversal.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The Board and the immigration judge are not required to “address
specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner
presented,” but they must “consider the issues raised and announce [their] decision
in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that [they] ha[ve] heard
and thought and not merely reacted.” Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374
(11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Jean-Pierre v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 500 F.3d 1315, 1325–26 (11th Cir. 2007); Mezvrishvili v. U.S. Att’y
14
Gen., 467 F.3d 1292, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). “When the [Board] or the
Immigration Judge has failed to give reasoned consideration or make adequate
findings, we remand for further proceedings because we are unable to review the
decision.” Mezvrishvili, 467 F.3d at 1295 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Ayala advances three arguments in his petition for review. First, he
challenges the determination of the Board that he failed to establish past
persecution on account of a protected ground. Second, he challenges the
determination of the Board that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. Third, he challenges the
determination of the Board that he failed to establish an entitlement to withholding
of removal. Because we conclude that the Board and the immigration judge failed
to render a reasoned decision about Ayala’s claim of past persecution, we vacate
the decision of the Board and remand for further proceedings.
“To establish asylum based on past persecution, the applicant must prove (1)
that []he was persecuted, and (2) that the persecution was on account of a protected
ground.” Silva, 448 F.3d at 1236. Persecution is “an extreme concept” that
requires more than “[m]ere harassment” or “a few isolated incidents of verbal
harassment or intimidation.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (alteration in original)
15
(internal quotation marks omitted). “The statutes governing asylum and
withholding of removal protect not only against persecution by government forces,
but also against persecution by non-government groups that the government cannot
control . . . .” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006).
An applicant for asylum must prove that he was persecuted on account of
one of five protected grounds: “‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.’” Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d
1270, 1277 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). The Board of
Immigration Appeals has held that homosexuals constitute a “particular social
group” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In re Toboso-
Alfonso, 20 I. & N. Dec. 819, 822–23 (BIA 1990). An asylum applicant need not
prove that the persecution is motivated entirely by a protected ground. De
Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1007 (11th Cir. 2008). Instead, an
applicant need only “show that the persecution is, at least in part, motivated by a
protected ground.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The decision of the Board about Ayala’s claim of past persecution is
deficient. The Board relied on an alleged finding that the immigration judge, in
fact, never made. The Board also credited Ayala’s testimony, but ignored the
import of that credited testimony. And the Board faulted Ayala for a failure of
16
proof about an issue that is immaterial in this context. In the light of these
deficiencies, we cannot meaningfully review the decision of the Board.
The analysis of the Board as to whether the mistreatment Ayala suffered
rises to the level of persecution lacks “any review of the most important facts
presented in this case.” Jean-Pierre, 500 F.3d at 1325. Ayala testified that police
officers physically assaulted him, robbed him, handcuffed him, placed him in a
patrol car, put a hood over his head, and forced him to perform oral sex on one of
the officers. Although this Court has not considered whether sexual assault, such
as rape or forced oral sex, rises to the level of persecution, several of our sister
circuits have concluded that abuse that is sexual in nature may constitute
persecution. See, e.g., Haider v. Holder, 595 F.3d 276, 287–88 (6th Cir. 2010);
Ndonyi v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 702, 710 (7th Cir. 2008); Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Board did not explain whether the sexual assault that Ayala described
rose to the level of persecution. The Board instead baldly asserted that it “agree[d]
with the Immigration Judge that the mistreatment [Ayala] described does not rise
to the level of persecution,” but the Board described a finding the immigration
judge never made. After a thorough review of the opinion of the immigration
judge, we are unable to identify any ruling by the immigration judge that Ayala’s
mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution, and the government conceded
17
at oral argument that the immigration judge made no such ruling. The immigration
judge instead found that the police officers did not assault Ayala on account of his
sexual orientation or political opinion and that the incident was not inspired by or
acquiesced in by the Venezuelan government. We cannot meaningfully review the
ruling of the Board when it relies entirely on a ruling that the immigration judge
did not make.
The Board also failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its finding that
the police officers were not motivated to harm Ayala on account of a protected
ground. Based on its longstanding precedent in In re Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I. & N.
Dec. at 822–23, the Board agreed with the immigration judge that homosexuals
constitute a particular social group, and the government does not dispute that
finding. The Board then explained, “[A]s noted by the Immigration Judge, there is
insufficient evidence to establish that the policemen who robbed and sexually
assaulted [Ayala] were motivated to harm him on account of a protected ground.
Such criminal acts by rogue police officers are not persecution ‘on account of’ one
of the protected grounds.” The immigration judge had found that Ayala “could not
associate the actions of these policemen with any prejudice or discrimination
extended toward gay men as a group, or toward him as an individual” and Ayala
“suffered as a result of the acts of rogue policemen and not the targeted efforts of
those intent on abusing and persecuting a person with a different gender preference
18
than their own.” The findings of the Board and the immigration judge are at odds
with Ayala’s testimony, which the immigration judge found credible. Ayala
testified that the police officers assaulted him outside of a gay nightclub and told
him “to shut up because [he] was queer and they could apply the vagrancy laws”
and “[t]hey could incarcerate [him] or plant drugs in [his] house and that was all as
a result of being queer.” Neither the Board nor the immigration judge
acknowledged Ayala’s testimony about the police officers’ motivations, much less
reconciled that testimony with its finding that the police officers did not harm
Ayala, at least in part, on account of his sexual orientation. See Tan, 446 F.3d at
1376.
Another of the reasons the Board provided for its conclusion that Ayala had
failed to establish eligibility for asylum is “unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). The Board explained that Ayala had “failed to show the
government would not protect him [from the police officers] because he never
reported the incident.” This Court has never held that an applicant for asylum who
alleges that he was persecuted by an official of the government must report the
persecution to the authorities to establish eligibility for asylum. The government
cites our decision in Lopez v. U.S. Attorney General, 504 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir.
2007), to support its argument that Ayala had to prove that the Venezuelan
government was unable or unwilling to protect him from the police officers who
19
had physically and sexually assaulted him, but the government misreads Lopez.
Lopez stands for the proposition that an applicant who alleged persecution by a
private actor must prove that he “is unable to avail [him]self of the protection of
h[is] home country” by presenting evidence that he reported the persecution to
local government authorities or that it would have been useless to do so. 504 F.3d
at 1345. The applicant in Lopez alleged that she had been persecuted by the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a violent guerilla group at war with the
government, but she had not reported the persecution to Colombian authorities. Id.
at 1343. We explained that, “[a]lthough the failure to report persecution to local
government authorities generally is fatal to an asylum claim,” the Board of
Immigration Appeals had held that the reporting requirement “would be excused
where the petitioner convincingly demonstrates that those authorities would have
been unable or unwilling to protect her, and for that reason she could not rely on
them.” Id. at 1345; see also In re S-A-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1328, 1335 (BIA 2000). In
re S-A-, the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that we cited in Lopez,
also involved persecution by a private actor. 22 I. & N. Dec. at 1335.
An applicant for asylum who alleges persecution by a private actor must
prove that his home country is unable or unwilling to protect him because “[t]he
statutes governing asylum and withholding of removal protect . . . against
persecution by non-governmental groups that the government cannot control.”
20
Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257 (emphasis added). It does not follow that an applicant who
alleges persecution at the hands of an official of the government should be held to
the same requirement, particularly when, as here, the applicant was harmed by the
police—the “very agency which purports to protect him by law.” Hernandez-
Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177 (9th
Cir. 2005) (en banc). Consequently, it was unreasonable for the Board to rely on
Ayala’s failure to report the police officers’ misconduct to support its finding that
Ayala had failed to establish past persecution.
We must remand to the agency for further proceedings. Both the Board and
the immigration judge failed to give “reasoned consideration . . . or make adequate
findings” as to whether Ayala suffered past persecution on account of a protected
ground. Mezvrishvili, 467 F.3d at 1295. In the light of that failure to render a
reasoned decision, we do not address Ayala’s arguments about future persecution
and withholding of removal. See Tan, 446 F.3d at 1377.
IV. CONCLUSION
We GRANT Ayala’s petition for review, VACATE the decision of the
Board, and REMAND for further proceedings.
21