FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO GONZALEZ CRIOLLO, No. 10-72214
Petitioner, Agency No. A026-614-398
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Julio Gonzalez Criollo (“Criollo”) petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and
special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
*
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).
American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Criollo also petitions for review of the BIA’s
denial of his motion for remand to the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) to allow him to
pursue cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (“non-LPR
cancellation of removal”). Finally, Criollo argues that the IJ and BIA erred in
failing to consider his eligibility for voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition in part, deny in part, and remand.
Criollo’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, special rule
cancellation under NACARA, and non-LPR cancellation of removal are subject to
the persecutor bar. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i) (asylum); id. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i)
(withholding of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a) (NACARA special rule
cancellation); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(5) (non-LPR cancellation). Criollo testified in a
hearing before an IJ that as a member of the Salvadoran National Guard, he
investigated, arrested, and interrogated people because of their ties to leftist groups.
He turned these individuals over to his superiors knowing that they would likely be
tortured. Some of the people he arrested were subsequently “beaten like animals.”
This evidence indicates that Criollo was both “personally involved” in and
“purposefully assisted” persecution on account of political opinion, shifting the
burden to him to prove that he was not a persecutor. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d);
Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2006). Criollo failed
to carry that burden. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Criollo assisted in persecution and was ineligible for asylum,
withholding of removal, and NACARA special rule cancellation of removal.
Additionally, even if the IJ erred in failing to inform Criollo of his “apparent
eligibility” for non-LPR cancellation of removal during initial proceedings, see 8
C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2), he cannot show that he was prejudiced, because he is
ineligible for that relief, too, on account of the persecutor bar. Consequently, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to remand to pursue non-
LPR cancellation.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Criollo has not
established entitlement to relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA
upheld the IJ’s finding that Criollo did not present credible evidence substantiating
his CAT claim. Even assuming his testimony was credible, Criollo has not shown
that it is more likely than not he will be tortured in El Salvador. 8 C.F.R. §
1208.16(c)(2). The fact that he was once questioned by the police after he reported
being captured by guerillas does not suffice to show that he would be tortured “by
or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official” in
El Salvador. Id. § 1208.18(a)(1).
Finally, Criollo argues that the IJ erred in failing to inform him of voluntary
departure or consider his eligibility for voluntary departure. Under the regulations,
an IJ “must advise a respondent of the forms of relief for which he or she is
apparently eligible, including voluntary departure.” Matter of C-B-, 25 I&N Dec.
888, 891 (BIA 2012) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)). The IJ did not discuss
voluntary departure at Criollo’s merits hearing nor in her written decision ordering
him removed. Criollo noted his apparent eligibility for voluntary departure in
briefing before the BIA, but the BIA did not address it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b).
We therefore remand for the BIA to consider whether Criollo is eligible for
voluntary departure. See Moran-Enriquez v. I.N.S., 884 F.2d 420, 422 (9th Cir.
1989) (“[I]f an IJ fails to advise an alien of an avenue of relief potentially available
to him, we will remand for consideration of the alien’s eligibility for that relief.”).
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and REMANDED.