N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
DANIEL B AUTISTA-LOPEZ,
Pe titione r,

v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l
R

e sponde n t

. No. 15-71402 Age n c y No. A079-143-798

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 9, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia
B e fore : GOULD a nd M UR GUIA, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd Z O U H AR Y, ** Distric t Judge

.

Da nie l B a utista -Lope z , a M e xic a n n a t ive , pe t itions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of 

# FIL ED

MAR 27 2018
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T h is disposition is not a ppropria te for p ublic a tion a

n d i s not pre ced en t e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Ja c k Zouha

ry , Unit ed S t ate s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.Im

m i gra tion Appe a ls (B IA) orde r dism issing his a ppe al o f the de nia l of his

a pplic a tion for withholding of re m ova l a nd p rote c tion u nde r t he C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C A T). W e ha ve juris dic tion unde r 8 U.S.C

. § 1252(a )(1) a nd re vie w the

a ge nc y ’ s fa c t

u a l findings for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . S

hre stha v
. H olde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). W e gra nt in pa rt a nd de n y in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. 1. B e c a

use the B IA re lie d on the IJ’ s a na ly sis of B a utista -Lope z ’ s c re dibility , “ we look to the I J ’s or al d ec ision a s a guide to wha t la y be hind the B IA’ s c onc lusion.”
Te k le v
. Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1 051 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ita tion o m itte d). U nde r the

a pplic a ble R EAL ID Ac t s t a nda rd, the IJ m

ust c o nside r the tota lity of the ci rc um sta nc e s a n d provide “ ‘ a spe c ific c oge nt re a s on’ for the a dve rse c re dibi l i t y finding.” Gui v
. IN

S , 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th C ir. 2002) (c ita tion om itte d); se e also 8 U

. S.C

. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). He re , the IJ found B a u tista -Lope z wa s not c r ed i b l e ba se d on m a te ria l disc re pa n c ie s be twe e n his I-589 a pplic a t io n an d h i s he a ring
te stim ony . In his I-589 a

p plic a tion, B a

utista -Lope z s uc c inc tly sta te d tha t he wa s kidna

p e d by l oc a l s, sold to the c a rte l, a n d be a te n se v e re ly for t hre e w eek s be c a

use h e re fuse d
to a ssist with the c a rte l ’ s drug sm ug g l i n g o pe ra tions. Howe ve r, he did not m e ntion tha t his c a ptors use d bolt c utte rs to se ve r o ne t oe a nd split o p e n a nothe r, a s he te stifie d during the he a ring. Nor did he m e ntion the “ c ripple d m a n” who trie d to he lp him

or

2his fa m ily ’ s e fforts to se c ure h i s ra n som

— both prom i ne nt fe a ture s of his he a ring
te stim ony . B a

utista -Lope z e xpla i ne d tha t he did not m e ntion the se de ta ils e a rlie r b ecau s e h e “ forgot,” whic h the IJ found “ suspic ious.” The IJ a lso ske ptic a l ly not ed
B a utista -Lope z ’ s te stim ony t ha t wh en he re turne d to the Unite d Sta t e s, he sought

m e dic a l a tte n tion for a

c ut on his ha

nd, but not his se

ve re d toe

. On a ppe a l, the B IA c onc lude d tha t the se om i ssions a nd inc onsiste nc ie s “ we re
not m inor, c olla

te ra l de ta ils, but inste a d w e nt t o the c o re of h is a lle ge d fe a r of

re turning to M e xic o.” W e a g re e . T hus, substa n tia l e vide nc e s upports t

he IJ’ s a dve rse

c re d ibility

de te rm ina t ion a

nd the B IA’ s de nia l of withholding of re m ova l. 2. The ne xt issue is the a pplic a tion for C AT prote c tion. The e vide nc e inc lude d the
M e x ic o 2013 H um an R ights R e port (M e x ic o R e port), whic h wa s a dm i tte d without obje c tio n. To de m o n stra t e e l igibility for C AT re lie f, “ a n a lie n m ust show tha t it is

‘ m ore like ly tha

n not’ tha t a g ove rnm e nt o ffic ia l or pe rson a c t ing in an o f f i ci al

c a pa c ity w ould torture him or a id or a c quie sc e in his torture by othe rs.” W

ak k ary v
. Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting K a malthas v
. IN

S , 2 51 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th C ir. 2001)); se e also 8 C .F.R

. §§ 1208.16(c )(2), 1208.18(a )(1). The
IJ is re quire d to c onside r “ a ll e vide nc e re le va nt to t he p o s sibility of future torture .” 8 C .F.R

. § 1208.16 ( c) ( 3). “ Eve n if t he IJ c orre c tly c o nc l ude d tha t [the pe titione r’ s] testim ony , by i tse lf

, wa s insuffic ie nt to m e e t his burde n unde r C AT, this c onc lusion

3would not be dispo si t i v e be c a use a C AT a

pplic a nt m a y sa t isfy his burde n with

e vide nc e of c ountry c onditions a lone .” Aguilar-Ramos v
. Holde r , 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th C ir. 2010) (c iting K

amalthas , 251 F.3d a

t 1284). The IJ fa i l e d t o ad dr es s the M e xic o R e port in ruling on the C AT c la im

. R e sponde nt c onte nds t

his wa s not e rror be cau s e th o ugh the IJ m ust c o nside r a l l

re le va nt e vide nc e , h e or she is not re quired t o “ disc uss e a c h pie c e of e vide nc e subm itte d.” C

ole v
. Holde r , 659 F.3d 7 6 2 , 7 7 1 (9th C i r. 2011) (e m pha sis a dde d).
Inste a d, “ ge ne ra l l a ngua ge tha t the a ge nc y ‘ c onside re d a ll the e vide n c e b e fore [it] ’ is suffic i e nt.” Garc ia v
. Holde r , 749 F.3d 7 85, 791–92 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ To sa y tha t the re is ‘ no e vide nc e i n the re c ord’ c le a rly im p lie s tha t the B IA h a s looke d a t a ll of the

e vide nc e in the re c ord.” ).
B ut the IJ a n d B IA opinions in this c a se i nc l ude d no s uc h “ c a tc h a ll” la ngua ge . The re fore , we gra nt the pe tition for re v ie w o f this c la im a nd re m a nd for c onside ra tion in the first insta

n c e o f the C A T c la im in light of the M e xic o Rep o r t

. S ee AguilarRamos , 594 F.3d a t 705 (“ B e c a use the B IA fa ile d to re c onside r the C ountry R e port

a t a ll, the prope r c o u rse o f a c tion is to re m a nd with instruc tions tha t the B IA c onside r [Pe titione r’ s] C AT c l a im i n light of t he C ountry R e port.” ); s e e also IN S v
. Orlando
Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (pe r c uria m ).
PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART ,

4AND RE M ANDE D.

5