UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ URENA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-14No. No. 20-50044

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Gonzalez-Urena's motion to dismiss, holding that he failed to show his predicate removal order was fundamentally unfair because he lacked a plausible claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena, a Mexican national, was indicted for illegally reentering the United States after removal. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his original removal order was fundamentally unfair because he had a valid legal claim for protection at the time of his 2013 removal proceedings. Specifically, he contended that his mental health conditions would likely result in his detention in a Mexican mental institution where he would face torture, thereby qualifying for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The appellate court reviewed the lower court's factual findings and legal conclusions regarding whether Gonzalez-Urena had demonstrated a plausible claim for relief under torture-based protection standards. The court found substantial record support for the district court's determinations that his mental illnesses would not likely lead to institutionalization in Mexico and that Mexican officials would not specifically intend to harm him if institutionalized. Because Gonzalez-Urena failed to establish a plausible torture claim at the time of removal, he could not demonstrate the fundamental unfairness necessary to invalidate his removal order and dismiss the indictment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a removal order is fundamentally unfair when the defendant claims he had a plausible Convention Against Torture claim
Whether mental illness alone establishes a plausible basis for torture protection upon removal
What standard applies to assess likelihood of torture in a foreign country post-removal

Procedural posture

Gonzalez-Urena appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment for illegal reentry after removal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Antonio Gonzalez-Urena, a Mexican national, appeals the district courts denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Urena has not shown that his predicate removal order was fundamentally unfair under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3), thereby warranting dismissal of his indictment. See United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 780 F.3d 906, 913 (9th Cir. 2015). To demonstrate fundamental unfairness, Gonzalez-Urena must show that he had a “plausible, rather than merely conceivable or possible” claim for relief at the time of his 2013 removal proceedings. Id. at 914. Gonzalez-Urena argues that he had a plausible claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because his “mental condition has led to multiple arrests, convictions, and prison terms” and, therefore, if removed, it is likely that he would “come to the attention of Mexican law enforcement” and “then end up in an institution where he is more likely than not to suffer torture.”

We review de novo the district courts denial of Gonzalez-Urenas motion, and we review its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Rodriguez, 813 F.3d 748, 755 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 915 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[w]hat is likely to happen to a petitioner if deported” is a question of fact, not a legal conclusion).

The record supports the district courts finding that Gonzalez-Urenas mental illnesses would not likely lead to his detention in a Mexican mental institution if he were removed to Mexico. Cf. Guerra, 974 F.3d at 915–16. Nor did the district court err in finding it unlikely that officials at such institutions (or healthcare providers to whom officials have acquiesced) would specifically intend to harm Gonzalez-Urena if he were institutionalized. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 988–89 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that Gonzalez-Urena lacked a plausible claim to relief under the CAT.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. We decline to address Gonzalez-Urenas argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that he is likely to be tortured in a Mexican prison if removed. United States v. Hernandez-Arias, 757 F.3d 874, 883 (9th Cir. 2014).