MENDEZ GONZALEZ v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-09No. No. 19-71384

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of the immigration judge's denial of Convention Against Torture protection is upheld.

Flavio Mendez-Gonzalez, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for review of an immigration board decision denying him protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mendez had been kidnapped and beaten in Mexico in 2014, escaped, and then entered the United States. When facing removal, he sought withholding of removal and CAT protection, but both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his claims.

On appeal, Mendez argued that the immigration judge failed to properly analyze his CAT claim in light of country reports about Mexico. The court examined whether the judge had adequately considered the evidence and provided sufficient reasoning. The court found that although the judge's CAT analysis was brief, it was supported by a thorough examination of the threat Mendez would face if returned to Mexico conducted during the withholding of removal analysis. The judge's conclusion that Mendez had not demonstrated a greater-than-fifty-percent chance of torture by or with the consent of the Mexican government was based on the finding that no evidence showed he would encounter his kidnappers again.

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

Key issues

Whether an immigration judge must provide detailed analysis when denying CAT protection claims
Standard for establishing likelihood of torture under the Convention Against Torture
Whether country reports on human rights must be expressly cited or quoted in immigration decisions

Procedural posture

Mendez petitioned for judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that adopted without opinion an immigration judge's denial of Convention Against Torture relief in removal proceedings.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Flavio Mendez-Gonzalez (“Mendez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting without opinion an Immigration Judges (“IJ”) denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 2014, Mendez was kidnapped in Mexico, beaten, and held for ransom. After he managed to escape, Mendez entered the United States. When the government detained Mendez and initiated removal proceedings, Mendez applied for withholding of removal and CAT protection. The IJ denied both, holding as to the latter that he was not likely to be tortured with the consent and acquiescence of the Mexican government. The BIA affirmed without opinion. Mendez only appeals the CAT denial.

Because the BIA adopted the IJs order, “we review the IJs decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005) (simplified). The BIAs factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and legal questions are reviewed de novo. Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).

On appeal, Mendez argues only that the IJ failed to explain its decision or conduct an individualized analysis of his claim in light of the 2013 and 2016 country reports. “In order for the court to exercise our limited authority, there must be a reasoned explanation by the BIA of the basis for its decision.” Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (simplified). Thus, even though “the BIA is not required to discuss each piece of evidence submitted,” a decision “cannot stand” if “there is any indication that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it.” Id. (simplified).

We conclude that the IJ satisfied the necessary obligations. The IJ determined that Mendez had failed to show he would be tortured upon removal to Mexico. Although the IJs analysis of the CAT claim was limited, the IJ thoroughly discussed the threat to Mendez if he returned to Mexico as part of the withholding of removal claim. The IJ ultimately concluded that Mendez did not establish it was “more likely than not that his life or freedom would be threatened if he were returned to Mexico” because no evidence indicated he would encounter his kidnappers again. Such a finding supports the IJs related conclusion that the evidence did not show there is a “ ‘chance greater than fifty percent that [Mendez] will be tortured’ by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government.”

Contrary to Mendezs arguments, the IJ explicitly considered the State Departments 2016 Human Rights Report for Mexico and determined that the instances of torture mentioned therein were insufficient to show Mendez would himself be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government. Nothing required the IJ to expressly quote the 2013 country report as well, especially since the IJ specifically stated he considered all the evidence submitted by the parties.

The petition is DENIED.