N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LORENA R

AM IR ES-FLOR ES, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-72554 Age n c y No. A078-261-683 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm itte d June 4, 2020 Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : C HR ISTEN, WA TFORD, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. Lore na R a m ire s-Flore s 1 pe t itions for re v ie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ de c ision dism

issing he r a

ppe a l from

the Im m igration Judge ’ s orde r finding he r c om

p e te nt to re p re s e nt he rse lf a n d ine l igible for re lie f unde r the 

# FIL ED JUN 23 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. 1 Pe t itione r’ s re a l na

m e is M aria

Isa be l C o ta B anue los. For c onsiste nc y with a prior pe tition for re vie w in this c ourt, c ounse l he re use d the a lia s from he r visa . To a

void c onfusion, wea lso use Pe titione r’ s a lia s.C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we grant the pe tition in pa rt, de ny it in pa rt, a nd re m and for furthe r c onside ra tion. 2 1. W e a gre e with theB IA that the IJ did not e rr in finding Ram ire s-Flore s c om pe te nt. 3 An a lie n is c om

pe te nt to pa

rtic ipate in he r im

m igration proc e e d ing if

“ she ha s a ra tiona l a nd fa c t ua l unde rsta

nding of thenature an d obje c t of the proc e e dings, c an c onsult with the attorne y or re pre se ntative if the re is one , a nd ha s a re a sona ble opportunity

to e xam ine and pre s e nt e vide nc e and c ross-e xam ine witne s se s.” Salgado v . Se s sions , 889 F.3d 982, 987 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Matte r of M-A-M- , 25 I. & N. De c . 474, 479 (B IA 2011)). Afte r the gove rnm e nt stipula te d tha t R am ire s-Flore s wa s e ntitle d to a he aring to de te rm ine whe the r she wa s pa rt of the c l a ss c e rtifie d in Franc o-Gonzale z v . Holde r , No. C V-10-02211 DM G, 2014 W L 5475097 (C .D. C a l. Oc t. 29, 2014), the IJ a lso c o nside re d he r

“ a b ility to pe rform a dditiona l func tions ne c e ssa ry for se lf-re pre s e ntation.” Id. at *6.

2 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we re c ite only those ne c e ssa ry to re solve the issue s on a ppe a l. 3 The pa rtie s disputethe a

pplic a b l e sta nda rd of re vie wfor c om

pe te nc y de te rm i nations. B e c a

use we would a ffirm

the B IA unde r e i the r the substa ntia l e vide nc e or de novo sta

nda rd, we ne e d not de te rm ine whic h a p p lie s. 2R am ire s-Flore s c onte nds tha t the IJ e rre d by

finding tha

t she wa s not a

c la ss m e m b e r unde r Franc o-Gonzale z , 2011 W L 11705815, a

t *16, but R

am ire s-Flore s take s this stra

y sta te m e nt out of c onte xt. In a ny e ve nt, the m issta

te m e n t wa s ha rm le s s be c a

use the IJ c onduc te d a

c om pe te nc y he aring. The IJ use d Franc o-Gonzale z ’ s fram e w o rk and its sugge s te d que stions to e va luate R a

m ire s-Flore s’ s c om

pe te nc y . The IJ que stione d he r unde rsta n ding of the im m igration proc e ss a

nd he r le ga l rights. Hea l so e xam i ne d he r c om pe t e nc y ove r the c ourse of the proc e e dings, noting he r m e nta l c ondition throughout the six m onths prior to her initia l im m i gration he aring. W e a g re e with theB IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t the IJ’ s c om

pe te nc y finding wa s not e rrone o us. 2. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the IJ’ s de c ision de ny ing R am i re s -Flore s C A T re lie f. S e e K amalthas v
. IN

S , 251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th C ir. 2001). First, the

IJ m a de no finding a s to whe the r R am ire s-Flore s would “ m ore like ly tha n not” be torture d if re m ove d, 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2), so the re wa s no finding on the

first prong of C AT to whic h the B IA c o uld de fe r. Se e Pe re z-Palafox v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th C ir. 2014) (noting tha t the B IA m a

y not e nga ge in de novo fa c t finding a nd m ay only re vie w fa c t

ua l findings). W e re m and for findings on C AT’ s first prong in the first insta nc e .

3As to these c o n d prong of theC AT c la i m , the IJ e rre d by c onc l uding tha

t R am i re s -Flore s fa ile d to e sta b l ish a c quie sc e nc e . Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 509–10 (9th C ir. 2013). Ac quie sc e nc e oc c urs whe re public offic ia ls a re

“ aw are [] of the [torture ] (or c onsc iously c lose the i r e y e s to the fa c t it is going on); and . . . bre a c h the ir le ga l re sponsibility to inte rve ne to pre ve nt the [torture ] be c a use the y are una ble or unwilling to oppose it.” Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 363 (9th C ir. 2017). TheIJ inc orre c tly de fe rre d to the M e xic an gove rnm e nt’ s e fforts to c urta i l c rim e ge n e ra lly inste a d of a

nswe ring the c ritic a l que stion: whe the r, de spite the se e fforts, loc a l public offic ia ls would a c quie s c e in R am i re s -Flore s’ s torture . Se e Madrigal , 716 F.3d a t 510 (obse rving tha

t “ [i] f public offic ia ls a

t the sta te and loc a l le ve l in M e xic o would a c quie sc e in a ny torture [the pe titione r] is like ly to suffe r, this sa

tisfie s C AT’ s re quire m e nt tha t a public offic ia l a c quie sc e in the torture , e ve n if the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt in M e xic o would not sim

ila rly a c quie sc e [] ” ). The re c ord c om p e l s a c ontra ry c o nc lusion to the o ne re a c he d in this c a se be c a use R am ire s-Flore s pre se n t e d de ta ile d, e xte nsive , and c re dible te stim ony that a M e xic an polic e c ar e s c orte d the c ar that took he r a c ross the borde r and de live re d he r to a drop house in Ariz ona . She te stifie d tha t a fe de ra l polic e offic e r stood outside the drop house and m a de no a tte m p t to

4inte rve ne de spite the obvious sm uggling a c tivity . This re c o rd c o m pe ls the c onc lusion tha

t R a m ire s-Flore s sa

tisfie d C AT’ s se c ond prong.

G RANT E D IN PART ; DE NIE D IN PART ; RE M A NDE D , with thepa rtie s to be ar the ir own c osts.

5