Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02566/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02566-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General United States of America
Respondent
Julio Cesar Gonzales Zamora
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-2566

____________

JULIO CESAR GONZALES ZAMORA,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent

__________________________________

On a Petition For Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A091-293-465)

Immigration Judge: Walter A. Durling

__________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 21, 2015

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 11, 2015)

____________

OPINION*

____________

PER CURIAM

Julio Cesar Gonzalez Zamora (“Gonzalez Zamora”) petitions for review of the 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2566 Document: 003112152298 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2015
2

Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of removal.1 For the reasons that follow, we 

will deny the petition for review.

Gonzalez Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States 

without inspection or parole in 1981, and adjusted his status in 1991. He was convicted 

in 2011 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(A), and sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment of 70 months. On or about October 7, 2013, Gonzalez Zamora was served 

with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings. Based on his admissions before an 

Immigration Judge, he was found to be removable under Immigration & Nationality Act 

(“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien who has been 

convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(43)(B) (illicit trafficking in a controlled substance, including a drug trafficking 

crime), and INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), as an alien who has been 

convicted of a controlled substance offense.

After being advised that he was ineligible for most forms of relief from removal, 

Gonzalez Zamora applied for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, 

claiming a fear of being harmed in Mexico by his co-conspirators. At his merits hearing 

in April, 2015, he testified that his sister-in-law, Magda, offered him $2,000 to participate 

in the drug trafficking scheme that ultimately led to his arrest and conviction. He claimed 

that the leader of the scheme and other co-conspirators remained at-large in Mexico, and 

 

1 We will use the spelling of the surname provided in the Petitioner’s brief.

Case: 15-2566 Document: 003112152298 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2015
3

that they might seek revenge against him for losses sustained by the group on account of 

his arrest, or try to recruit him for further illicit activity if he returns. He also claimed 

that Magda’s nephew was killed in Mexico in 2011 or 2012; that his childhood friend 

disappeared in Mexico; and that an unidentified acquaintance was forced to work for a 

drug cartel after the group mistreated members of his family. He claimed further that his 

brother was severely beaten by one of these cartels, that they “they cut the head” of 

“another person that [he knew],” and that his sister-in-law “is on the list.”

The IJ denied the CAT application for insufficient evidence and ordered that 

Gonzalez Zamora be removed to Mexico. The IJ noted that Gonzalez Zamora admitted 

that he has never been threatened with harm and that he has no fear that Mexican 

government officials will torture him. The IJ acknowledged that Gonzalez Zamora may 

be legitimately concerned about the prospect of being recruited by criminal elements in 

Mexico, but that such a fear is insufficient to prove that it is more likely than not that he 

would be subjected to torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican 

government. 

Gonzalez Zamora appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and submitted 

numerous letters from family members, including his children, expressing their need for 

him and supporting his efforts to remain in the United States. On June 4, 2015, the Board 

affirmed the IJ and dismissed the appeal. The Board noted as a threshold matter that, 

because his offense involved more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, Gonzalez Zamora was 

not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA § 212(h), 8 U.S.C.§1182(h), among 

other things not relevant here. The Board then concluded that there was no record 

Case: 15-2566 Document: 003112152298 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2015
4

evidence which would support a conclusion that there is a clear probability that Gonzalez 

Zamora will be tortured upon his return to Mexico.

Gonzalez Zamora has timely petitioned for review, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The 

INA precludes review of final orders against aliens who, like Gonzalez Zamora, are 

removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony or an offense related to a 

controlled substance. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).2 We, nevertheless, retain jurisdiction 

over colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. Id. at § 1252(a)(2)(D). A CAT 

applicant must show that “it is more likely than not that [he] would be tortured in the 

proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Kaplun v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 

602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010), holds that whether future torture is likely turned on two 

questions: “(1) what is likely to happen to the petitioner if removed; and (2) does what is 

likely to happen amount to the legal definition of torture?” Id. at 271. The first question 

is factual; the second is legal. See id. See also Pieschacon-Villegas v. Att’y Gen. of 

U.S., 671 F.3d 303, 310 (3d Cir. 2011) (same). The agency denied Gonzalez Zamora’s 

CAT application on the basis that what is likely to happen to him in Mexico does not 

amount to the legal definition of torture. This is a reviewable determination. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D). In addition, Gonzalez Zamora argues in his brief that he is statutorily 

eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA § 212(h), contrary to the agency’s 

determination that he is not. Petitioner’s Brief, at 3. 

We will deny the petition for review. Where, as here, the Board agrees with the 

decision and analysis of the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions. 

 

2 Gonzalez Zamora does not dispute that he is removable as charged.

Case: 15-2566 Document: 003112152298 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/11/2015
5

See Sandie v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 562 F.3d 246, 250 (3d Cir. 2009). We conclude that 

the agency considered all of Gonzalez Zamora’s evidence, applied the correct standard of 

review, gave him a full and fair opportunity to present evidence, and properly determined 

that the record evidence does not meet the legal definition of torture. “Torture is defined 

as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally 

inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining ... information or a confession, 

punishing [him] ... for an act [he] has committed or is suspected of having committed, 

intimidating or coercing, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” 

8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). The torture must be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with 

the consent or acquiescence of” an official person. Id. The prospect of being recruited 

by criminal elements in Mexico does not meet the legal definition of torture. Moreover, 

Gonzalez Zamora failed to show a link between the Mexican government and drug cartel 

recruitment and violence as it pertains to his application. He provided corroborating 

country-conditions evidence—a 2013 State Department Human Rights Report—showing 

that cartel violence and official corruption remain serious problems in Mexico, but this 

evidence also indicates that the Mexican government is making efforts to combat both. 

In any event, there is an insufficient link between this country-conditions evidence and 

Gonzalez Zamora’s particular allegations. Accordingly, the agency properly denied relief 

under the CAT.

Gonzalez Zamora argues in his brief that the aggravated felony bar to waivers 

under INA § 212(h) does not apply to him because he was not admitted as a lawful 

permanent resident; rather, he adjusted his status many years after he entered the United 

Case: 15-2566 Document: 003112152298 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/11/2015
6

States. Petitioner’s Brief, at 3 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (“The terms ‘admission’ 

and ‘admitted’ mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United 

States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”)). We have 

previously held that this is a valid distinction. See Hanif v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 694 F.3d 

479, 484 (3d Cir. 2012) (section 212(h) waiver limitation applies only where there is “a 

prior admission to the United States [and] that ... prior admission has been made while 

the alien was in the status of a lawful permanent resident.”). See also Martinez v. Att’y 

Gen. of U.S., 693 F.3d 408, 415-16 (3d Cir. 2012). More is required, however, to be 

eligible for a § 212(h) waiver on the basis of an “extreme hardship,” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(h)(1)(B), to a qualifying relative. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182, aliens may be 

inadmissible on criminal or related grounds, id. at § 1182(a)(2), but the statute provides 

the Attorney General the discretion to waive inadmissibility insofar as the criminal or 

related grounds “relate to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of 

marijuana,” id. at § 1182(h). Gonzalez Zamora’s offense is a drug conspiracy involving 

possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. It thus does not 

relate “to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana” and so 

he is still ineligible for a § 212(h) waiver.

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review. 

Case: 15-2566 Document: 003112152298 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/11/2015