FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON YUDINI GUADRON, No. 13-72517
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-178-309
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 5, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS and BYBEE, Circuit Judges and TIGAR,*** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jon S. Tigar, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Nelson Guadron appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against
Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We affirm.
To uphold the BIA’s decision that Mr. Guadron is not entitled to deferral of
removal under the CAT, substantial evidence in the record must support the
conclusion that Mr. Guadron did not show it is more likely than not he will be
tortured if removed to El Salvador. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a).
The record includes a 2007 State Department Issue Paper on gang organizations in
El Salvador, which declares that official anti-gang efforts have not infringed upon
the human rights of suspected gang members, and that it is not a Salvadoran
government policy or practice to target suspected gang members for abuse or
execution or to deny assistance to persons who receive threats from gangs. The
report also documents that the State Department has found no evidence that law
enforcement officers summarily detain, beat, or execute gang-affiliated individuals
who are removed from the United States to El Salvador. A State Department report
can alone outweigh an applicant’s evidence that he is likely to suffer torture.
Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2014). The State Department’s
declarations were amply pertinent and authoritative to outbalance Mr. Guadron’s
2
evidence, which was not always specific or authenticated, even if truthful and
troubling.
We also review the BIA’s decision to ensure it includes sufficient
explanation and “a minimum degree of clarity in dispositive reasoning and in the
treatment of a properly raised argument” to comport with constitutional due
process and to enable this Court to perform meaningful appellate review. She v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 958, 963 (9th Cir. 2010). Even where, as here, the record
contains substantial evidence to affirm the BIA’s decision, “the law requires more
than a cursory explanation” of how that evidence was weighed and analyzed,
particularly where a petitioner has given credible testimony that may refute the
significance of the evidence offered by the government. Id. at 963 n.3.
The BIA announced its decision in a brief opinion that listed the evidence it
considered, indicated in citations that it relied on the Department of State Issue
Paper and evidence of country conditions, identified the correct legal standard, and
clearly communicated its decision. We are satisfied from the record that the BIA
conducted a reasonable and particularized analysis of the issues. It also
communicated a sufficiently plain explanation of its reasoning and conclusion to
Mr. Guadron.
AFFIRMED.
3