Immigration Asylum Relocation.

Byline: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed an immigration judge's decision to deny an Ecuadorian petitioner's application for asylum, substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion about the feasibility of internal relocation.

Petition for review should be denied.

"Petitioner Tomas Caz ('Caz'), a member of Ecuador's Quechua indigenous group, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ('CAT') applications which were rejected by an Immigration Judge ('IJ'). He then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals ('BIA'), which affirmed the IJ's decision. Convinced the BIA and IJ got it wrong, Caz filed a petition for review with this court, asking us to reverse the BIA's affirmance and remand his case.

"Against this factual and procedural backdrop, we turn our attention to the three issues Caz raises to us in his petition for review: 1) the BIA erred in adopting the IJ's adverse credibility finding, a finding which was made (in Caz's view) against the totality of the circumstances; 2) the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's determination that Caz did not suffer past persecution because his attackers were not motivated by his Quechua heritage; and 3) the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's determination that Caz could safely relocate within Ecuador and it would be reasonable for him to do so. We bypass the first two issues and focus our gaze squarely on the third issue, which is dispositive of the whole petition.

"Crucially, under the substantial evidence standard, the...