N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANASTAC IO SILVA-NUNEZ, AKA Hora lio Silva

Arre ola , AKA C hito Silva
Nune z , Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-70123 Age n c y No. A089-839-971
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 a nd Subm itte d April 6, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KOZINSKI a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc u it Judge s, a nd B L OC K, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED MAY02 2017 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.

* * The Honora

ble Fre de ric B loc k, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.1. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s fa c tua l de te rm ination tha t Silva
Nune z ’ s fa ile d to m e e t the one -y e ar de a dline to file for a sy lum be c a use he wa s a fra id of de porta

tion a n d ignora nt of a sy lum

rathe r tha

n due to his a lle ge d PTSD. Se e G aspary an v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th C ir. 2013). B e c a use we la c k jurisdic tion, wede ny

Silva -Nune z ’ s m otion to ta ke judic ia l notic e of doc um e nts
re late d to this c la im

[Dkt. #14]
. 2. The B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t Silva -Nune z fa ile d to c a rry his burde n to show tha

t “pe ople who e xpre sse d the ir opposition to the drug c arte l
m e m b e rs” is a “ pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group” and thus tha t Silva -Nune z is ine ligiblefor withholding of rem o v a l pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3). Silva -Nune z fa ile d to offe r e vide nc e tha

t he , like the a sy lum -se e ke r in Pirir-Boc v . Holde r , 750 F.3d 1077, 1084-85 (9th C ir. 2014), ha d e nga ge d in publicopposition to the c arte ls. His opposition to ga

n g re c ruitm e nt by

ga ng m e m be rs, without more , did not e sta blish the re quisitesoc i a l distinc t ion of the c la im e d group. Se eRamos-Lope z v . Holde r , 563 F.3d 855, 861-62 (9th C ir. 2009), a brogate d on othe r grounds by H

e nriquezRiv a s v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th C ir. 2013). 3. The IJ’ s a

n d B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Silva -Nune z fa ile d

to show “that it is m o re like ly

tha n not tha t he . . . would betorture d if re m ove d to” M e x ic o, 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2), wa s not “ supporte d by re a sona ble , substa

ntia l, a nd proba tive
2e vide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole .” Singh v
. Holde r , 656 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). The IJ found that Silva -Nune z “ fa ile d

to pre s e nt a

ny e v i de nc e tha

t a ny one in the ga

n g ha s trie d to c o nta c t him ” sinc e his kidna

pping a nd tha t Silva -Nune z “ fa i le d to ide ntify
any one in M e xic o who would wa nt to ha rm him or know tha

t he wa s a ske d to join the g ang, a c c e p t e d but the n fle d the c ountry .” The B IA a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de c ision in pa rt on this ba sis. Thefa c tua l ba sis for the B IA’ s a ffirm anc e is fa ta l ly fla we d. Silva -Nune z pre se nte d c re dible te stim ony tha t a spe c ific , na

m e d individual ha d
arrange d for his kidna

pping by the c arte l, ha d be e n in c onta c t with Silva -Nune z a fte r the kidna

pping, a nd ha d wa

rne d Silva -Nune z not to te l l a ny one a bout the inc i de nt. The B IA furthe r e rre d a s a m atte r of la

w in c onc luding M e x ic an offic ia ls would not a c quie sc e to Silva -Nune z ’ s torture . First, theB IA fa ile d to c onside r the
attitude s or a c tions of loc a l M e xic an offic ia ls, inste a d c onside ring only fe de ra l
e fforts to c o ntrol ga

ngs. Se eMadrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 509–10 (9th C ir. 2013). Se c ond, theB IA e rre d in finding tha t the diffic ulty

of “ d ise nta

ng[ling] ina b ility from unwillingne ss” we ighe d against a finding of offic ia l a c quie sc e nc e . Se e Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 363 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ [T] he B IA

3foc u se d only on the nationa l gove rnm e nt’ s e fforts a nd not the ir e ffic a c y , whic h
wa s m i sta ke n unde r Madrigal .” ). Silva -Nune zpre se nte d c re dible te stim ony , both his own a nd tha t of a n e xpe rt on M e xic a

n ga ngs, a s we ll a s doc um e nta ry e vide nc e , c o m

pe lling the
c onc lusion tha

t “ it is m ore like ly

tha n not tha t he would betorture d if re m ove d” to M e x ic o. 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2). W e re m and to theB IA so tha t it m ay c onside r, a fte r c o rre c ting thea

bove -de sc ribe d e rrors, whe t he r Silva -Nune z is a

ble to re loc ate within M e xic o to a

v oid torture
. Se eMaldonado v . Ly nc h , 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th C ir. 2015). E ac h par ty to be arits ow n c osts. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D.

4