David Antonio Quezada- Gonzalez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID ANTONIO QUEZADA-
GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72526
Agency No. A099-539-214
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit
Judges.
Petitioner, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of an order of removal
denying statutory withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and grant the
petition for review in part. The Board of Immigration Appeals lacked substantial
FILED
JUN 09 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

evidence for its finding that Quezada-Gonzalez did not have a well-founded fear of
persecution in El Salvador. Gang members recognized Quezada-Gonzalez as a
former police officer and searched for him in his neighborhood, forcing him to flee
to his family members’ homes in other towns. Gang members found Quezada-
Gonzalez at both his brother’s house and his sister’s house. Third parties relayed
that the gang members wanted to kill Quezada-Gonzalez and that the police had
approved the plan to do so. As a result, Quezada-Gonzalez fled to the United
States repeatedly. Three individuals who attempted to warn Quezada-Gonzalez
about the gang members’ search, including Quezada-Gonzalez’s nephew,
disappeared or were killed. Although no gang member directly communicated a
threat to Quezada-Gonzalez, repeated indirect threats give rise to a well-founded
fear of persecution. See Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 2004).
The Board also lacked substantial evidence for its finding that Quezada-
Gonzalez’s role in disrupting a particular criminal incident as a police officer could
have accounted for all of the threats he received. Although one gang member in
Quezada-Gonzalez’s hometown identified Quezada-Gonzalez as the officer who
arrested him, there is no evidence that Quezada-Gonzalez arrested the gang
members who searched for him in the airport or the towns where his siblings lived.
See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2013).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Nor was there substantial evidence that Quezada-Gonzalez’s ex-wife’s
personal relationship with a gang member caused his persecution. Nothing in the
record suggested that the gang members who searched for Quezada-Gonzalez in
three different towns had any interaction with the gang member Quezada-Gonzalez
encountered at his ex-wife’s home. Accordingly, this record compels the
conclusion that Quezada-Gonzalez’s status as a former police officer was “one
central reason” for his persecution.
Quezada-Gonzalez’s request for relief under the Convention Against Torture
was properly denied. Quezada-Gonzalez was not tortured in the past. The Board’s
finding that it is not more likely than not that upon return to El Salvador
Quezada-Gonzalez would be tortured by gang members with the consent or
acquiescence of the government was supported by substantial evidence.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND
REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --