Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, No. 14-70276 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner is a Salvadoran citizen and national who was a former Salvadoran professional soccer player and then government official. The IJ concluded that petitioner was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because there were serious reasons for believing he committed serious nonpolitical crimes in both El Salvador and Guatemala; the IJ found petitioner to be non-credible after concluding that his explanation for failing to report his violent interactions with police in his asylum application was highly implausible; the IJ pointed out that petitioner admitted to having lied to the Salvadoran court, and found that petitioner failed to produce relevant evidence corroborating his story about the attacks; and the IJ held that petitioner has not met his burden under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because he had neither demonstrated he would likely be tortured in either El Salvador or Guatemala. The BIA thereafter dismissed petitioner's appeal and largely adopted the IJ's reasoning. The court concluded that the agency's credibility determination was valid; the Guatemalan charges provide a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that petitioner is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal; petitioner's law of the case argument is meritless; and, in regard to the CAT claim, the BIA's order commanding petitioner's removal to Nicaragua stands. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review brought by Roberto Carlos Silva-Pereira, a former Salvadoran professional soccer player and deputy to a Salvadoran congressman, holding that he was statutorily barred from asylum and withholding of removal relief under the serious nonpolitical crime bar, and did not qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held that the evidence did not compel the conclusion that Silva was credible. The panel further held that substantial evidence supported the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that Silva was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal under the serious nonpolitical crime bar, because there was probable cause to believe that Silva was complicit in the murders in Guatemala of three Salvadoran representatives to the Central American Parliament. The panel held that it need not decide whether the law of the case doctrine applies to administrative proceedings in the immigration context, because even assuming it does, neither the immigration judge nor the Board explicitly decided the serious nonpolitical crime issue before the final round of decisions. SILVA-PEREIRA V. LYNCH 3 The panel affirmed the Board’s denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, because Silva never asserted any fear of torture in Nicaragua, the country he designated for removal, and to which the IJ ultimately ordered removal. The panel declined to consider the Board’s determination that Silva failed to demonstrate a likelihood of torture in El Salvador, the alternate country of removal, because such a challenge does not relate to “the proposed country of removal,” as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.