Case ID: f-appx_542/html/0655-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cesar Elvin Amaya RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2013.
    Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
    
      Before: PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Elvin Amaya Ramos, a native of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the IJ applied an improper standard in determining Amaya’s application for CAT relief, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

To qualify for CAT relief, a petitioner must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The inquiry focuses on the particular petitioner, not on a hypothetical person being removed. In denying Ama-ya’s petition for relief, the IJ stated that to establish a claim for relief under the CAT Amaya needed to prove that of the 38,000 people deported to El Salvador, “19,001 persons would have to have been tortured.” This reasoning clearly misstates the appropriate legal standard. By requiring Amaya to prove that fifty percent of all deportees are tortured, the IJ improperly heightened Amaya’s burden of proof under the CAT.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.