Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr

959 F.3d 253

Manuel GUZMAN-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner,

v.William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 19-3417

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided and Filed: May 18, 2020

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Manuel Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming an immigration judge's denial of his application for withholding of removal.¹ Because the IJ and BIA erred in failing to give Guzman an opportunity to explain why he could not reasonably obtain certain corroborative evidence, because substantial evidence does not support the Immigration Judge ("IJ") and BIA's determinations regarding the unavailability of evidence to corroborate Guzman's claim about abuse by his stepfather, and because the BIA incorrectly required Guzman to demonstrate that his membership in a particular social group was "at least one central reason" for his persecution, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA's order, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Manuel Guzman is a native and citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States for over twenty years. Administrative Record ("A.R.") at 177 (Appl. for Withholding at 1). After leaving home at age 14, he crossed the border between Mexico and California at 17 and has not returned to Mexico since. Id. ; id. at 106 (Removal Proceedings Tr. ("Hr'g Tr.") at 26). On July 17, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security served him with a notice of hearing for removal proceedings. Id. at 1010 (Notice of Hr'g). On July 18, 2016, Guzman applied for asylum, withholding of removal under § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and withholding and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Id. at 91 (Hr'g Tr. at 12); id. at 41 (IJ Order).

A. The Hearing

At the hearing on his application for relief from removal, Guzman testified to the following information. He was born in the town of Estanzuela Grande in Oaxaca, Mexico. Id. at 117 (Hr'g Tr. at 37); id. at 177 (Appl. for Withholding at 1). He has one biological sister. Id. at 118 (Hr'g Tr. at 38); id. at 180 (Appl. for Withholding at 4). In his hometown, his family faced violence at the hands of another family, who murdered both his father and grandfather. Id. at 148 (Hr'g Tr. at 68). After his father was killed, when Guzman was one year old, he and his mother moved to a different town, San Pedro Mixtepec, which was about six hours away. Id. at 110; id. at 180 (Appl. for Withholding at 4).²

In San Pedro Mixtepec, Guzman suffered mistreatment at the hands of his mother and stepfather. Id. at 105–06, 147 (Hr'g Tr. at 25–26, 67). He explained that his mother cared more about her stepchildren, and that "she can't worry about her kids with her relationship with her husband." Id. at 127. Guzman testified that his stepfather regularly subjected him to physical abuse, as follows:

He usually get a, a rope, a root, he cut a root from the, the, the shores at the top of the dirt because he know that is not going to break. He used to mark my whole body whenever I take shower one day my mother see my back, how hurt I was. ... I told him one day that I cannot take it no more because I was hurt, so I started running, he chased me, he chased me, so I tried to go under the fence, but I got stuck, and he hurt me worse.

Id. at 128. Guzman stated that his stepfather would "look for any reason" to hit him. Id. at 140. He also testified that his stepfather hit his sister, id. at 140, and that when his mother tried to stop his stepfather from abusing him, "she got hurt, too, for the same reason, for she talking to him about me." Id. at 128; see also id. at 144 ("[S]he know that I can get hurt by the -- by, by him because she know how she, how she got treated by the -- by this man because of me."). At the same time, according to Guzman, his mother abused him, doing the "[s]ame thing my step-dad did, because he like a repeat." Id. at 147. No one reported the stepfather's abuse because he was in charge of the political subdivision where they lived. Id. at 108–09.

When Guzman left home at age 14, his mother and stepfather told him never to set foot on their property again. Id. at 126. Three years later, his aunt gave him a "deal" to come to the United States, id. at 106, where he has lived since 1998, id. at 177 (Appl. for Withholding at 1). He testified that he fears returning to Mexico for several reasons. First, he fears that his stepfather, who still has connections to the police and harbors resentment toward him for abandoning the family, would kill him. Id. at 129, 145 (Hr'g Tr. at 49, 65); id. at 140 ("He's still looking for me."). Second, he fears that the individuals who murdered his family members would believe, if he returned, that he had come to avenge his father's death, and would try to kill him. Id. at 150; id. at 114–15 (explaining that these individuals murdered his cousin a few months before the hearing).

Because Guzman did not present affidavits from family members in support of his application for relief, portions of the hearing dealt with the whereabouts of these individuals and how frequently Guzman communicates with them. First, he testified that he last spoke between two to four weeks before the hearing with an uncle who fled Estanzuela Grande for the United States to escape the violence that their family faced and now lives in New Jersey. Id. at 112–13. Guzman offered no explanation for why he had not asked this uncle to write a statement for him. Id. at 113. Second, he stated that he has an aunt who lives "about an hour away from where [his] dad used to live," with whom he exchanges text messages "every week, every other week." Id. at 124–25. When asked why this aunt had not provided a statement for him about continued threats from the individuals in Estanzuela Grande who have harmed his family members, Guzman did not offer an explanation. Id. at 124–25. Third, with respect to his sister, who still lives in Mexico, he stated that "where she live there's really no communication, so that's the reason I'm not really talk to her." Id. at 142. He continued:

We talk like maybe once a year. Now where she live is no, no communication so she had to walk, I think 30 minutes, 40 to an hour to, to -- where she can go to a public phone, I mean to a store where she can pay for a phone, so this is why I not really talk to her.

Id. at 142. Finally, with respect to his mother, with whom he had last spoken two weeks ago, he said he could "try[ ] getting a letter from her," but that he had not already done this because she was unable to write. Id. at 127, 142–43. He added that "the same reason, communication problems" explained why he did not have a letter from his uncle in Mexico, id. at 143, who remains in Estanzuela Grande, id. at 114.

B. The Immigration Judge's Decision³

The immigration judge found that although Guzman was "generally credible," his testimony alone was insufficient to sustain his burden of proof without corroboration. A.R. at 43 (IJ Decision at 2). The IJ further found that Guzman "should have and could have produced corroborative evidence." Id. With respect to corroboration of his claim that his stepfather abused him, the IJ found that this claim was "easily subject to verification." Id. at 45. Addressing Guzman's explanation for why he lacked such verification, the IJ stated:

The respondent offered an explanation by way of the fact that it would be hard or difficult to communicate with his sister and get the information, and where the Court understands that and appreciates it, the respondent's testimony was that he was still in contact with his sister, that he's in contact with his mother, that he's in contact with his aunt, that he's in contact with his uncle, all the people that could provide corroboration, yet no corroboration has been provided to corroborate the details of the respondent's claim.

Id. The IJ then stressed the importance of corroboration on the issue of Guzman's stepfather's political influence, given Guzman's young age and potentially incomplete memory at the time of the alleged abuse. Id. Corroboration of the claim that there was a relationship between Guzman's stepfather and the "police or town management," the IJ found, could have come from Guzman's sister, his mother, "or any other sort of documentation in the town, or from the town." Id. at 45–46. Additionally, the IJ found that there was insufficient evidence in the record "that the step-father exi[s]ts, that he is, in fact, married to the mother, and that there is a step-father relationship with the respondent." Id. at 46. These claims, too, the IJ found, were "easily subject to verification ... through, at least, a letter from his sister." Id.

After finding that the abuse Guzman suffered at his stepfather's hands rose to the level of persecution under the INA and that Guzman was a member of two particular social groups—(1) male relatives of Javier Guzman-Romero (his biological father) and (2) children born to his mother and Javier Guzman-Romero—the IJ concluded that Guzman could not establish that he had suffered harm on account of his membership in these groups. Id. at 48–50. Instead, the IJ found that Guzman was "the victim of a[n] individual motivated by depravity and crime, and that he was abused by a thug, a bully and a criminal." Id. at 50. The IJ found that Guzman had a "fear of criminality." Id. The IJ alternatively concluded that there had been a change in circumstances in Guzman's life—namely the passage of time rendering his dependency on his stepfather moot—which left his past-persecution claim nonviable. Id. at 50–51. The IJ also concluded that Guzman could not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Id. at 51–53.

The IJ denied Guzman's applications for asylum, withholding of removal under § 241(b)(3) of the INA, and withholding and deferral of removal under the Convention Against...