Jose Ernesto Aleman-Belloso, a native of El Salvador and an influential lay minister in the ELIM Christian Mission Church, petitioned for asylum and withholding of removal after being attacked by members of the FMLN, El Salvador's primary left-wing political party. In early 2015, FMLN leaders approached Aleman, who held significant sway over his community, and demanded he use his pulpit to encourage church members to vote for the party in exchange for salary and public works benefits. Aleman refused, stating that El Salvador was a democratic country and that he would not influence political opinion to support a specific party. Five days after the FMLN lost the local mayoral election, masked gunmen attacked Aleman at his home, holding a gun to his head and demanding to know why he had not accepted their proposal. Aleman fled to the United States, claiming that the attack was based on his political opinion and his membership in a particular social group of influential church leaders. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found Aleman's testimony credible but denied his claims, concluding there was no nexus between the harm and his protected grounds and that the government did not acquiesce to the torture. The Ninth Circuit granted review to address these determinations.
The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Mendoza, affirmed the denial of asylum based on religious belief but reversed the denial based on political opinion and particular social group membership. The court first addressed the nexus requirement, explaining that political opinions encompass more than formal ideology and include the refusal to participate in a political organization. The record compelled the conclusion that Aleman held two political opinions: that it was wrong to use his church leadership to influence voters for the FMLN, and that the FMLN was ruining the country. The court rejected the Board's argument that the FMLN did not care about Aleman's ideology, noting that his refusal to act as a political operative was a sufficient expression of political opinion that motivated the attack. Regarding the particular social group, the court found the Board committed legal error by mischaracterizing Aleman's group as 'being a church leader who was persecuted because of his refusal to support the FMLN' rather than 'influential church leaders.' The court explained that a group is only impermissibly circular if defined exclusively by the fact of harm; the actual group asserted by Aleman was not defined by the harm. Consequently, the Board failed to conduct the proper analysis on whether influential Salvadoran lay ministers are a cognizable social group. Finally, the court addressed the Convention Against Torture claim. The Board had denied relief because the FMLN lost the local election five days before the attack and a new president was installed in 2019. The court found this unsupported by substantial evidence, noting that the FMLN maintained the presidency from 2009 to 2019 and controlled 70% of congressional and local seats as of 2021. The Board ignored this evidence of continued FMLN power and failed to consider probative evidence regarding government acquiescence to the past torture.
The case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine if influential Salvadoran lay ministers constitute a cognizable particular social group and to reassess the risk of future torture in light of the FMLN's continued power in the government. The Board must also address the government's involvement in or inability to control the persecution Aleman suffered. The decision clarifies that a refusal to engage in political proselytization can constitute a protected political opinion and that social groups defined by immutable characteristics like church leadership are not impermissibly circular merely because they are targeted for harm.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download