Vilchez Zarate v. Ashcroft

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Francisco Vilchez-Zarate, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because the BIA summarily affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA. Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir.2001).

Vilchez-Zarate testified that, while working as a member of the Peruvian Republican Guard, he received repeated and specific death threats from members of the Shining Path and associated “narco-terrorists” because he refused to cooperate with their demands. He further testified that his cousin’s car, in which he was known to ride, was bombed and that his police partner, who similarly refused to cooperate with the guerrillas, was killed. Because the IJ made no adverse credibility finding, we accept Vilchez-Zarate’s testimony as true. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir.2000).

We hold that the record compels a finding that Vilchez-Zarate has demonstrated past persecution. First, contrary to the IJ’s conclusion, the…

I respectfully dissent. The Shining Path targeted Vilchez-Zarate because he is a police office. Police officers qua police officers are not a protected group, and service as a police office, in itself, does not constitute political opinion. Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028-30 (9th Cir.2000). We held in Cruz-Navarro that a law enforcement officer is not entitled to asylum merely because a terrorist group retaliated against him for actions that he had taken against the group. The majority distinguishes our prior holding on the ground that, unlike the petitioner in Cruz-Navarro , Vilchez-Zarate has “linked his persecution to his repeated and express refusals to cooperate with the Shining Path.” Ante at 131 1. But even a cursory review of the facts in Cruz-Navarro shows that the petitioner there had taken action *133 against the Shining Path, that the Shining Path had targeted officers generally, and that the Shining Path had specifically retaliated against the petitioner for actual or perceived opposition to the terrorist group. See 232 F.3d at 1027-28 . The present case is not meaningfully distinguishable from Cruz-Navarro . That decision should be controlling, and the…