Unpub. CA5 Remand: Platino-Bargas v. Garland (Honduras, "One Central Reason")

Platino-Bargas v. Garland (unpub.)

"After reviewing the record, briefs of the parties, and previously filed joint motion of the Government and Petitioner to remand, we grant the motion to remand this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further consideration as outlined below. ... The IJ denied Petitioner’s application for asylum in part because Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was persecuted because of her race and therefore did not qualify as a “refugee” based on past persecution on a protected ground. This finding was made despite Petitioner’s testimony of widespread prejudice and mistreatment of her indigenous Miskito minority community and despite Petitioner’s testimony that her abusers repeatedly made racial or ethnic slurs as they were beating and raping her. The persecutors also berated her for her association with MASTA, a Miskito human-rights organization actively working to prevent the corrupt police and others from extorting land from her minority community. ... The IJ determined that the only central reason for Petitioner’s abuse, rape, and beating was the police’s extortion of her family. Despite the considerable evidence of mixed motives for Petitioner’s persecution, the IJ found that “the record lacks evidence that her race was a central reason for [her] assault or that the police officers extorted her family due to their race.” The BIA summarized and implicitly affirmed this finding without further explanation or consideration whether the record compels the contrary finding that her indigenous identity was also a central reason in light of the uncontradicted testimony of Petitioner—which the IJ credited. Both parties [emphasis added] have broadly attacked the adequacy of the BIA’s decision. We agree with the parties’ unopposed view that a remand to the BIA for clarification of its analysis is warranted. ... On remand, the BIA should explain and clarify whether the record supports the IJ’s finding that the only central reason Petitioner’s persecutors attacked her was to further their criminal enterprise of financial gain. Further, if, on remand, the BIA finds Petitioner is a “refugee,” the BIA should determine whether Petitioner or DHS bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of her relocation within Honduras and whether that burden was carried. See Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. at 17 (encouraging courts to “giv[e] the BIA the opportunity to address the matter in the first instance in light of its own expertise”). We forecast no opinion on the merits of these issues on remand. For these reasons, we GRANT the unopposed motion to remand this case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

[Hats off to Matthew Paul Nickson!]