Andrea Manrique Yaruro v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREA MANRIQUE YARURO, No. 18-72349 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-017-169 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 2, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: HURWITZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District Judge. Andrea Manrique Yaruro, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed her appeal of an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition in part, dismiss the petition in part, and deny the petition in part. 1. The agency evaluated Manrique Yaruro’s asylum and withholding of removal claims under the wrong legal standard. The IJ held that Manrique Yaruro had established past persecution. This triggered a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). When the government attempts to rebut this presumption with country conditions evidence indicating that there may no longer be widespread persecution, the agency “must ask whether the [government] has shown through record evidence that the individual who suffered past persecution is among the general population that is not suffering from a ‘sustained pattern’ of human rights violations, or whether the applicant is among the unlucky few who are most vulnerable to abuse.” Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998, 1011 (9th Cir. 2001). This “assessment must take account of the specific attributes of the past persecution on record.” Id. The BIA and IJ failed to consider how generalized country conditions evidence related to the most relevant aspects of Manrique Yaruro’s individualized circumstances and experiences. The analysis should have considered whether the peace accord between FARC and the Colombian government made it unlikely that Manrique Yaruro would suffer future persecution from the specific group of FARC members who persecuted her in the past. In particular, the agency’s analysis 2 should have accounted for the evidence that Manrique Yaruro was attacked by one of the FARC members in 2016, that she subsequently received further threats that caused her to leave Colombia, and that her family received a threat against her life months after the peace accord was announced. We therefore grant Manrique Yaruro’s petition with respect to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency to apply the correct legal standard in the first instance. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805-07 (9th Cir. 2004).1 2. We lack jurisdiction to consider Manrique Yaruro’s humanitarian asylum claim because she did not raise ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals