N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YAQUELIN PATRIC IA C ATALANM ATTA, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 19-72896 20-70188 Age n c y No. A200-771-449
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 i tte d Nove m

be r 20, 2020 Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : B YB EE, M UR G UIA, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Ya que lin C ata la n-M atta de R uiz(C ata l an) pe titions for re vie w of
a ne g at ive re a sona

ble fe ar de te rm inat ion unde r 8 C .F.R . § 1208.31(g) a nd a de nia l of a m otion to re ope n tha

t de te rm ination sua

sponte . W e hav e jurisdic tion to
re vie w a re insta

t e m e nt orde r unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), an d we re vie w “ d ue 

# FIL ED DEC 7 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 at 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.proc e s s c la im s a nd que stions of la

w ra ise d in im

m igration proc e e dings denov o .” Garc ia de Rinc on v . De

p’t of Home land Se c . , 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th C i r. 2008) (c ita tion omitte d). W e re vie w fa c tua l findings unde rly ing the re a sona

b l e fe ar de te rm i nation for substa

ntia l e v ide nc e , m e a

n ing the im

m igration judge ’ s (IJ)
c onc lusion m

ust be uphe ld “ unle ss, ba se d on the e vide nc e , ‘ any re a sona ble
a djudic ator would bec om pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry .’ ” A ndrade -Garc ia v
. Ly nc h , 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th C ir. 2016) (quoting Ai J un Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014)). W e grant the pe t ition in No. 19-72896 a nd re m and for furthe r fa c t-finding on a n ope n re c ord. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e doe s not support the IJ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t C ata la n fa ile d to e sta

b lish a re a sona

ble possibility

of pe rse c ution in Gua

te m a la on
a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. There c ord he re c om p e l s the c onc lusion tha

t C ata la n wa s ta rge t e d be c a

use of he r pursuit of theinve stiga tions into he

r da ughte rs’ m

urde rs by drug tra ffic ke rs. Thus, C ata la n ha s e sta blishe d a ne xus to a

t le a st he r propose d soc ia l group of “witne sse s te stify i ng a ga inst or othe rwise opposing ga

ng m e m be rs.” Se e Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ [I] f a

re tributory

m otive e xists a longsidea prote c te d m otive , a n a pplic ant
ne e d show only

tha t a prote c te d ground is ‘ one c e ntra l re a s on’ for [he r] pe rse c ution.” ); se ealso Ay ala v . Se ssions , 855 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th C i r. 2017)
2(stating tha

t whe re pe titione r “ se e ks only withholding of rem ova l a nd not a sy lum , she ne e d e sta

blish only tha t a prote c te d c ha

ra c t e ristic wa s ‘ a re a son’ m otiva ting” the p e rse c ution (c ita

tion omitte d )). C ata la

n’ s role a s a

prote c te d witne ss in a

n ongoing inve s tiga

t ion m ay be a prote c t e d ground unde r H e nrique z-Riv a s v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081, 1086, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2013) (e n ba nc ), whic h he ld tha

t Sa lva d oran witne s se s te stify ing a ga inst ga n g m e m be rs in ope n c ourt c ould
c onstitute a pa rtic u la r soc i a l group unde r the Im m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t, 8 U.S.C . §§ 1101–1537. W e re m and to thea ge nc y for furthe r c onside ra tion of the
c ogniz a bility of C ata la n ’ s propose d soc i a l groups. Se e Gonzale s v . Thomas , 547 U.S. 183, 186–87 (2006) (pe r c uriam ) (“ [T] he prope r c ourse , e xc e pt in ra re c irc um s ta nc e s , is to re m and to thea ge nc y for a dditiona l inve stiga

tion or
e xpla nation.” (c ita

tion omitte d)). 2. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e a lso doe s not support the IJ’ s de t e rm i nation tha

t C ata la n fa ile d to de m o nstra

te a re a s ona ble possibility

of torture e ithe r by

or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e n c e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to Gua te m a la . W e e xe rc ise our disc re tion to re a c h this issue de spite the la c k of de ve lopm e nt in C ata la n’ s ope ning brie f be c a

use the gove rnm e nt a ddre sse d the torture c la im in its brie f and the re fore is not pre judic e d
. Se e N

dom v . Ashc roft , 384 F.3d 743, 751 (9th

3C ir. 2004). The a sy lum offic e r found C ata la

n’ s te stim ony

c re dible , and the IJ did not disturb this finding. He re , C ata la

n ’ s te stim ony

c om pe ls a finding of governm e nta l a c quie sc e nc e . Se e Madrigal , 716 F.3d a t 509 (“ [A] n a

p plic ant for [C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT)] re lie f ne e d not show tha t the e ntire fore ign gove rnm e n t would c onse nt to
or a c quie sc e in his torture . He ne e d show only

tha t ‘ a public offic ia l’ would so
a c quie sc e .” (quoting 8 C .F.R . § 208.18(a)(1))); id. at 510 (“ If public offic ia ls a t the sta te an d loc a l le ve l . . . would a c quie sc e in a ny torture [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 . . . .” ); se e also Av e ndano-He rnande z v . Ly n c h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ It is e nough for he r to show tha t she wa s subje c t to tortureat the ha nds of loc a l offic ia ls.” ). It is unc le ar whe the r the a sy lum offic e r or the IJ de te rm ine d whe the r the pa st a c t s C ata la n te stifie d tha

t she e xpe rie nc e d or the future ha rm s she fe ars c onstitute

torture . The re fore , we re m and for furthe r c o nside ra tion. Se e Gonzale s , 547 U.S. a

t 186–87. * * *

4In light of the fore going, we grant the pe tition for re vie w in No. 19-72896
and re m and to thea ge nc y for furthe r proc e e dings c o nsiste nt with this disposition. 1 Se e Martine

z v . Se ssions , 873 F.3d 655, 660 (9th C ir. 2017). W e dism iss the pe tition for re vie w in No. 20-70188 a s m oot. C ata la n’ s m otion for a

sta y of
re m ova l in No. 19-72896 (Docke t Entry No. 2) a nd he r supple m e n ta l m otion (Doc ke t Entry No. 10) a

re both de nie d a s m oot. W e furthe r de ny C ata la n’ s m otion for judic ia l notic e (Doc ke t Entry No. 35) a s m oot be c a

use our re vie w of tha

t
m otion wa s unne c e ssa

ry for re solution of this a

ppe a l
. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W IN NO . 19-72896 G RANT E D; RE M ANDE D. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W IN NO . 20-70188 DISM ISSE D AS M O O T .

1 B e c a use we re m and to thea ge nc y for furthe r proc e e dings, we de c line to a ddre s s C ata la

n’ s due proc e ss c ha lle nge s. Howe ve r, we do note tha t the IJ in his disc re tion “ m ay a llow [C ata la n] to submit e vide nc e to support [] he r c la im ” upon re m and. Se e Bartolome

v . Se s sions , 904 F.3d 803, 813 (9th C ir. 2018) (c iting 8 C .F.R . § 1003.42(c )); Im

m igration C ourt Pra c tic e M anua l, c h. 7.4(e )(iv)(E).

5