MENDEZ GONZALEZ v. WILKINSON (2021)

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

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition is denied, affirming the immigration judge's and Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of Convention Against Torture relief.

Flavio Mendez-Gonzalez, a Mexican citizen, sought protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture after being kidnapped and beaten in Mexico in 2014. After escaping and entering the United States, he was placed in removal proceedings and applied for withholding of removal and CAT protection. An immigration judge denied both forms of relief, finding that Mendez failed to establish he would be tortured with Mexican government consent or acquiescence. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision without explanation.

On appeal, Mendez argued that the immigration judge failed to provide adequate reasoning and did not conduct an individualized analysis using relevant country reports. The court found that although the judge's CAT analysis was brief, it was adequate because the judge had thoroughly examined the threat to Mendez as part of the withholding analysis and explicitly considered the State Department's 2016 Human Rights Report. The judge concluded that Mendez presented no evidence he would encounter his kidnappers again or face torture by the Mexican government, which sufficiently supported the CAT denial.

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 reasoning when denying Convention Against Torture protection
Whether country reports must be expressly cited to demonstrate consideration of evidence
Whether a CAT claimant must show likelihood of torture with government consent or acquiescence

Procedural posture

Mendez petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of Convention Against Torture relief in a removal proceeding.

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.