Massive CA9 Nexus Win: Aleman-Belloso v. Garland

Aleman-Belloso v. Garland

"Jose Ernesto Aleman-Belloso (“Aleman”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ and BIA (together, the “Agency”) deemed Aleman’s testimony credible and found that he was subjected to torture at the hands of the FMLN—one of El Salvador’s primary political parties. But the Agency found that Aleman failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and any protected grounds, and therefore rejected his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. And the Agency denied CAT relief, finding it not likely that Aleman would be tortured again in the future. Aleman challenges the Agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims on the basis that the Agency erroneously concluded that there was no nexus between the harm he suffered and his religious beliefs, political opinion, or membership in a particularized social group. He also challenges the Agency’s denial of CAT relief as unsupported by substantial evidence and on the basis that the Agency failed to consider relevant evidence in the record. We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the Agency’s denial of Aleman’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. We grant the petition for review and remand all three claims for further proceedings. ... The Agency found that Aleman was tortured by agents of the FMLN. The record compels the conclusion that Aleman was attacked because of his political opinion and refusal to engage in political proselytization.8 The record also supports that the government acquiesced in Aleman’s torture—the attack came just five days after the FMLN lost in local elections, while the FMLN remained in power. We therefore GRANT in part Aleman’s petition, and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [fn8] Separately, as set forth above, the Agency committed legal error by mischaracterizing Aleman’s particular social group. On remand, the Agency may or may not need to consider whether Aleman’s social group is cognizable, depending on its resolution of Aleman’s political opinion claim."

[Hats way off to Judith L. Wood, Patricia G. Gittelson and Beth S. Persky!]