Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01569/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01569-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez-Peyro
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1569

___________

Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez-Peyro, *

*

Petitioner, *

* On Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2007

Filed: February 23, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Guillermo Ramirez-Peyro (Ramirez) sought asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that

if he were returned to his native Mexico he would be harmed or killed in retaliation

for his work as an informant for United States agents. The immigration judge granted

him deferral of removal under CAT, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

reversed and ordered Ramirez removed to Mexico. Ramirez petitions for review,

arguing that the Board applied the incorrect standard of review. We remand for

further proceedings. 

Appellate Case: 06-1569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281285
-2-

Ramirez was born in Mexico in 1971. By his own account, he became involved

in drug trafficking after leaving his job with the Mexican highway police in 1995, and

he oversaw the warehousing and distribution of large amounts of cocaine in

Guadalajara, Mexico. In 2000 he became a confidential informant for the United

States Customs, now the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He

was subsequently asked to infiltrate the Juarez Cartel run by Vincente Carillo Fuentes,

one of Mexico's most dangerous and prolific narcotics trafficking organizations.

Ramirez claims to have facilitated the arrest of some 50 individuals, including

Heriberto Santillan, a top lieutenant in the Juarez Cartel. Ramirez was taken into

United States custody as a material witness necessary to the prosecution of Santillan,

who eventually pled guilty to a drug trafficking charge. Ramirez also gave a

statement to representatives of the Mexican government implicating Santillan in the

murders of rival drug traffickers.

Ramirez was temporarily paroled into this country for the public benefit in

connection with his work for United States agencies, but he was never admitted. He

states that he has been in protective custody since 2004. His parole permit expired on

January 14, 2005, and he was subsequently placed into expedited removal

proceedings. On May 9, 2005 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued

a Notice to Appear charging Ramirez with being subject to removal under section

212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) on the ground that

he was an applicant for admission not in possession of a valid immigration document.

8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(7)(A)(i)(I). 

Ramirez conceded that he was removable, but filed an application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, claiming

that he feared torture and death at the hands of the Juarez Cartel and Mexican law

enforcement acting on the cartel's behalf. Ramirez had an interview with an asylum

officer who found that he had a credible fear of persecution from the Mexican

Appellate Case: 06-1569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281285
-3-

government based on his own testimony and a 2004 Department of State report that

described the involvement of Mexican police officers in criminal activity, including

acts of violence, on behalf of drug cartels. After a reviewing supervisor concurred in

his assessment, the asylum officer gave Ramirez's case a positive referral to an

immigration judge.

Ramirez appeared before an immigration judge on June 9, 2005. He conceded

in his prehearing brief that he had been involved in drug trafficking in Mexico,

rendering him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §

1231(b)(3)(B)(iii) (withholding and asylum barred where alien had committed

"serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States . . ."); see also In re Y-L-, 23 I.

& N. Dec. 270, 274 (BIA 2002) (drug trafficking constitutes a particularly serious

crime). He maintained that he was entitled to deferral of removal under the

Convention Against Torture, which contains no so such bar on the basis of prior

criminal activity. CAT protects an individual from being returned to a country where

it is more likely than not that he will be tortured. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). To

warrant relief, the harm feared must be "inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the

consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official

capacity." Id. § 1208.18(a)(1).

Although it is not enough that a government is aware of torture but powerless

to stop it, see In re S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1312 (BIA 2000), a government

official may be responsible for torture under CAT if he knows that it will occur and

"thereafter breach[es] his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such

activity." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7). In order to determine the likelihood that an

applicant faces torture in the proposed country of removal, the immigration judge

must consider all evidence, including but not limited to: (1) evidence of past torture

inflicted upon the applicant, (2) evidence that the applicant could relocate to another

part of the country where he is not likely to be tortured, (3) evidence of gross, flagrant

Appellate Case: 06-1569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281285
-4-

or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal, and (4) other

relevant country conditions. Id. § 1208.16(c).

Ramirez claimed that he would be tortured and killed if he were removed to

Mexico and that he feared retaliation not only from members of the Jaurez Cartel but

also from members of the police force who worked on their behalf, alleging that all

levels of the Mexican police had illicit connections to drug trafficking. He testified

that while working as an ICE informant he witnessed police officers murder

individuals at the behest of Santillan and other members of the Juarez Cartel, and that

he saw many other bodies of individuals killed in a similar fashion. He also testified

that Mexican authorities would often alert the cartel about informants, and that on at

least one occasion Mexico's Federal Agency of Investigation (AFI) provided

information to the cartel about a possible informant, leading to his murder. 

Ramirez further testified that ICE agents warned him that his life was in danger

and that two attempts had already been made on his life in connection with his work

for ICE. He stated that he and his family, which had been relocated to the United

States for their protection and at the federal government's expense, had already been

paid some $220,000 by the United States government for his work as an informant but

that ICE had also orally agreed to give him resident status in this country. He testified

that he was surprised when he was placed into removal proceedings. Ramirez was the

only witness to testify at the hearing, but both parties submitted documentary

evidence, including country reports from the Department of State confirming the close

relationship between Mexican law enforcement and drug cartels, records detailing

Ramirez's relationship with ICE, evidence that United States government officials

were concerned for his safety, and newspaper accounts of his role as an ICE

informant. Some of these news reports suggested that Ramirez's relationship with ICE

had become a source of embarrassment for the federal government, since he had been

Appellate Case: 06-1569 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281285
-5-

present when cartel members murdered several rival drug traffickers and was alleged

to have some role in those killings and or their coverup.

In an oral decision on August 11, 2005, the immigration judge (IJ) concluded

that relief was "clearly" warranted under CAT, credited Ramirez's testimony, and

noted that the documentary evidence indicated that "there are U.S. law enforcement

officials who believe that this cartel would be most interested in having the respondent

killed." The IJ found that the threat to Ramirez came not just from members of the

cartel, but also from parts of the Mexican government:

Mexican law enforcement, to a great extent, has carried out various

crimes on behalf of the narco-traffickers in Mexico. And there really

does not seem to be much dispute with the respondent's testimony that the

Mexican police were involved in some of the killings he witnessed.

Further, there is information that high-ranking national police officials in

Mexico turned over information on informants to the cartel.

The IJ determined that "it is more likely than not that [Ramirez] would be subjected

to torture or worse were he returned to Mexico at this time" and granted his

application for deferral of removal to Mexico.

DHS appealed the IJ's decision and the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed.

Although the Board found no clear error in the IJ's credibility finding, it concluded the

Ramirez was nevertheless not entitled to relief under CAT because (1) he had failed

to establish that the harm he faced would more likely than not be inflicted by

government officials or with their consent or acquiescence, and (2) the threat to

Ramirez was localized in the north of Mexico in close proximity to Juarez so that

Ramirez could safely relocate to another part of the country. The Board ordered him

removed to Mexico. 

Appellate Case: 06-1569 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281285
-6-

Ramirez petitions for review, arguing that the Board incorrectly reviewed the

IJ's findings of fact de novo and improperly engaged in its own fact finding.

Acknowledging that it was not clear that the Board had employed the appropriate clear

error standard, the government filed a motion to remand this case to the Board so that

it could clarify its standard of review. Ramirez initially opposed the motion but now

also asks this court to remand. The only real dispute is whether this court should

review the administrative record and conduct its own evaluation of the IJ's factfinding

before remanding to the Board. Ramirez asks us to adopt the IJ's factual findings as

the only appropriate reading of the evidence and remand the case with instructions for

the Board to grant his application. The government argues that the Board should have

the opportunity to apply the correct standard of review in the first instance.

Ramirez argues that the Board erred by supplanting the IJ's findings of fact with

its own, both with respect to the role of Mexican officials in inflicting or acquiescing

to torture and the possibility that Ramirez could relocate to another safe location

within Mexico. Although the Board may review questions of law and discretion de

novo, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), it must defer to the factual findings of the

immigration judge unless they are clearly erroneous, id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i); see also In

re S-H-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 462, 464 (BIA 2002). "Except for taking administrative

notice of commonly known facts such as current events or the contents of official

documents, the Board will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding

appeals." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(3)(iv). 

Under the INA as amended by the Real ID Act, we have jurisdiction to address

legal or constitutional errors made by the Board notwithstanding other provisions of

the Act that limit our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Because Ramirez

raises a legal challenge to the Board's decision, we have jurisdiction over his petition

regardless of whether it falls within the jurisdiction stripping language of §

242(a)(2)(C). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (stripping courts of appeals of jurisdiction

Appellate Case: 06-1569 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281285
-7-

over orders of removal of aliens who have committed certain crimes); see also Tran

v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 937, 943 (6th Cir. 2006). 

Although the Board set forth the appropriate standard of review at the outset of

its decision in this case, both parties agree that it is not clear that the Board followed

that standard. Nowhere did the Board conclude that there was clear error in the IJ's

express finding that Ramirez was likely to be tortured by Mexican officials. Nor did

the Board squarely address the evidence on which the IJ based this finding, including

the concededly credible testimony of Ramirez about what he witnessed. Instead it

cited isolated instances where the Mexican government has recently attempted to

redress the major police corruption problem. The Board also appears to have engaged

in its own factfinding in contravention of its regulations by determining that any threat

to Ramirez would be restricted to the northern part of Mexico, making it possible for

him to relocate elsewhere. The IJ made no specific findings about the geographic

reach of the Juarez Cartel or other major drug trafficking networks, although it did

note that Ramirez appeared to be in danger even within parts of the United States. If

the Board concluded that the IJ erred in not specifically addressing the possibility that

police involvement in drug trafficking was a problem confined to the north of Mexico

or that the cartel would not be able to reach Ramirez in other parts of the country, it

should have remanded the case to the IJ for further factfinding. See 8 C.F.R. §

1003.1(d)(3)(iv) ("If further factfinding is needed in a particular case, the Board may

remand the proceeding to the immigration judge . . ."); see also In re S-H-, 23 I. & N.

Dec. at 465 (remand unavoidable except in rare circumstances where factual issue is

clear). 

Although we conclude that the Board did not appear to apply the proper

standard of review and engaged in its own factfinding, we nevertheless decline

Ramirez's invitation to engage in our own analysis of the facts and their implications

for his claim. "Generally speaking, a court of appeals should remand a case to an

Appellate Case: 06-1569 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281285
-8-

agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands." INS

v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (remand appropriate even where court of appeals

regarded facts as clearly supporting applicant); see also Gonzales v. Thomas, 126 S.

Ct. 1613, 1615 (2006). Congress has entrusted the Attorney General with the

authority to set standards for removal proceedings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g), and

pursuant to this authority the Board has been granted the power to review decisions

of immigration judges, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b). To impose our own views on the

merits of Ramirez's case at this point would be to "intrude upon the domain which

Congress has exclusively entrusted to an administrative agency." Ventura, 537 U.S.

at 16. The Board should be given the opportunity to discharge its statutory duty to

review the IJ's factual findings for clear error and remand to the IJ for further

proceedings if appropriate. 

Accordingly we vacate the Board's decision and remand petitioner's case for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 06-1569 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281285