Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ARISTIDES SOTO MANSILLA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM *
Aristedes Soto Mansilla (“Soto”) petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
Relief under NACARA is unavailable to any applicant who has “incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a). Soto told an immigration officer that as a sergeant in the Guatemalan military, he informed on suspected guerillas, knowing that they would likely be tortured. After guerillas were identified, the military would send a special G-2 intelligence team, who would take the suspected guerillas to the base to be investigated and tortured. He identified at least some of the suspected guerillas because they “had fliers.” This evidence indicates that Soto was both personally involved in and purposefully assisted persecution on account of political opinion, Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2006), shifting the burden to him to prove that he was not a persecutor, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). Soto failed to carry that burden. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Soto assisted in persecution and was ineligible for NACARA special rule cancellation of removal.
DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 13-74272
Decided: November 14, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)