NUNEZ CAMPOS v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-12No. No. 20-70942

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that Nunez-Campos failed to meet her burden of proof for Convention Against Torture protection.

Ruth Nunez-Campos sought review of an immigration board decision that rejected her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. She argued that the immigration judge failed to adequately consider country condition reports documenting widespread domestic violence against women in Mexico. The court found that the judge had in fact reviewed and discussed the country conditions evidence but properly focused on Nunez-Campos's individual circumstances rather than relying solely on general conditions affecting women in Mexico. Because Nunez-Campos did not challenge the judge's finding that she failed to demonstrate her husband would torture her, and the record did not support a different conclusion, the denial of relief was upheld.

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

Key issues

Whether general country conditions evidence regarding domestic violence suffices to establish eligibility for CAT protection
Whether the agency adequately considered country conditions reports in denying CAT relief
Whether applicant established that a specific torturer would inflict torture with government acquiescence

Procedural posture

Nunez-Campos petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an immigration judge's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Ruth Nunez-Campos petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order upholding the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Nunez-Campos failed to meet her burden for obtaining protection under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief under CAT because Nunez-Campos failed to establish that her husband “would even bother to contact her, much less torture her,” or that the Mexican government would acquiesce in any torture. Before us, Nunez-Campos contends that the agency failed to consider all evidence of torture, namely country conditions reports indicating the prevalence of domestic violence against women in Mexico. But the IJ adequately considered and discussed the country conditions evidence, and the “circumstances of [Mexican] women in general ․ do not vitiate the agencys specific findings” as to Nunez-Campos in particular. Dawson v. Garland, 998 F.3d 876, 885 (9th Cir. 2021). Nunez-Campos does not challenge the IJs finding that she failed to establish that her husband would torture her, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. The agency thus properly denied her request for relief under CAT.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.