N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JESUS VILLA-M ER

AZ, AKA Isidro C ruz Silva , Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-70100 Age n c y No. A079-767-615
M E M O RANDUM *

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 April 11, 2019 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C ALLAHAN, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Je sus Villa -M e ra z pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the Im m igra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic a tion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c t ion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the 

# FIL ED
JUL 02 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.pe tition a s to the a sy lum c l a im , a nd gra nt the pe tition a s to the withholding of
re m ova l a nd C AT c l a im s .

“ W e e xam ine the B IA’ s le ga l c onc lusions denovo a nd its fa c t ua l findings for substa ntia l e v ide nc e .” Parada v . Se ssions , 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th C ir. 2018) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d); 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ). “ W he re , a s he re , the B IA ha s re v ie we d the IJ’ s de c ision a nd inc orpora te d

portions of it a s its own, we tre a t the inc orpora te d pa

rts of the IJ’ s de c ision a s the B IA’ s.” Molina-Estrada v

. IN S , 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th C ir. 2002). 1. Asy lum and W

ithholding of Re

mov al To qua lify

for a sy lum , a

n a pplic ant m

ust e sta blish pe rse c ution or a

we llfounde d fe ar of pe rse c u tion on a c c o unt of a prote c te d ground. Parada , 902 F.3d a t 909. The prote c te d ground m ust be “ a t le a st one c e n tra l re a son for pe rse c uting the
a pplic ant.” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(I); s e e Parussimov a v . Muk a se y , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th C ir. 2009). To qua lify

for withholding of rem ova l, a n a pplic ant m

ust e sta b lish a “ c le ar proba b ility ” tha t he would be subje c t

to pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. C

he n v . Ashc roft, 362 F.3d 611, 617 (9th C ir. 2004). In c ontra st to
a sy lum , a pplic ants for withholding of re m ova l m ust sim p ly e sta blish tha t a prote c te d ground wa s “ a re a son” the y we re pe rse c ute d; the prote c te d ground doe s
2not ha

ve to be the only

re a son or “ a c e ntral re a son” the y we re pe rse c ute d. Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly n c h , 846 F.3d 351, 358

– 59 (9th C ir. 2017); Ay a la v

. Se ssions , 855 F.3d 1012, 1015, 1021 (9th C ir. 2017). He re , the a ge nc y

c orre c tly found tha

t Villa -M e ra z suffe re d ha rm tha t rose to the l e ve l of pe rse c ution a

nd tha t his propose d prote c t e d grounds— m e m b e rship in his fa m ily and im pute d politic a l opinion— c onstitute d prote c te d grounds. Se e , e .g. , Rios v . Ly nc h , 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th C ir. 2015); Molina-Estrada , 293 F.3d a t 1095. B ut the a ge nc y

c onc lude d tha

t Villa -M e ra z did not e sta blish ne xus be twe e n his pe rse c ution a

nd the se prote c te d grounds. This dete rm inat ion is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Villa -M e ra z ’ s brothe r, M anue l, wa s a n e le c t e d offic i a l in M e xic o. While in offic e , M anue l re fuse d to c oope ra te with the c arte l. Substa ntia l e vide nc e shows M an ue l wa s kidna

ppe d and m urde re d by

the c arte l soon a fte r he announc e d he wa s running for pre side n t of the m unic i pa lity . He wa s running a ga inst a c andida te who
wa s ba c ke d by

the c arte l. Villa -M e ra z ’ s m othe r witne sse d the kidna pping, a nd M an ue l’ s body

wa s la te r found dum

pe d in a ditc h with wounds c onsiste nt with having be e n be a t e n a

nd shot m u ltiple tim e s . C ountry c ondition re ports a lso support tha

t M anue l wa s kille d for politic a l re a sons. The c arte l ha s a history of
m urde ring e le c te d offic ia ls a nd c andida

t e s for offic e . It is a

nd wa s c om

m on for the
3c arte l to m

urde r politic a l c an d idate s a nd influe nc e e le c tions in M i c hoa c án— both prior to 2011, during 2011, a nd a fte r 2011. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e shows tha

t , a little ove r a

y e ar la t e r, Villa -M e ra z ’ s brothe r-in-la

w, Je sus M anue l, wa s m

urde re d by

the c arte l a s he sa t in his c ar outside a loc a l groc e ry

store . V illa -M e ra z , M a

n ue l, a nd Je s us M anue l worke d toge the r both during a

nd a fte r M anue l’ s te rm in e le c te d offic e . The y

we re fre que ntly

se e n toge the r in public . Je sus M a n ue l a lso supporte d M anue l’ s politic a l
a c tivitie s. Afte r M anue l wa s kille d, Villa -M e ra z fle d to the c ountry s ide . A little ove r a y e ar a nd a

ha lf la te r, substa

n tia l e vide nc e shows Villa -M e ra z wa s kidna p pe d by the
c arte l soon a fte r he wa s stoppe d by the polic e and ide ntifie d

him se lf. The c arte l be a t him and he l d him c a

ptive for 1.5 m onths. The c arte l kne w to c onta c t his siste r to re que st ra

nsom m o ne y . He wa s re le a se d a fte r his siste r pa i d the re que ste d
ra nsom m one y . The c arte l told him the y would kill him

if the y sa w him a ga in. The c arte l told him not to te l l the gove rnm e nt or the polic e tha t he wa s kidna

ppe d be c a use the gove rnm e nt a

n d the polic e worke d for the c arte l, so the c arte l would find out a bout the re port a

nd kill him

an d his fa

m ily
. Villa -M e ra z ’ s c re dible te stim ony ; the c re d ible writte n de c la ra tions subm

itte d by his fa m ily m e m

be rs; the doc um e n ta

ry e vide nc e he subm itte d, inc l uding a
4ne wspa

pe r a rtic le re ga

rding his brother-in-la

w ’ s m urde r, photogra

phs of Villa
M e ra z ’ s injurie s, a

nd c e rtific a te s re la te d to his brother’ s politic a l offic e ; a n d the
c ountry c ondition re

ports c om pe l a c onc lusion tha

t Villa -M e ra z ’ s brothe r M anue l
wa s kille d

by the c arte l due to his politic a l opinion, tha t Villa -M e ra z ’ s brothe r-inla w Je s us M anue l wa s kille d by the c arte l due to his re la t ionship to M a n ue l, a nd that Villa -M e ra z wa s kidna

ppe d, be a te n, a

n d he ld for 1.5 m onths by

the c arte l due , a t le a st in pa

rt, to his fa

m ily m e m be rship. B u t the re c ord a lso e sta b lishe s tha

t Villa -M e ra z ’ s kidna

pping wa s m otiva

t e d by fina nc ia l ga in be c a

use the kidna

ppe rs sought a ra nsom . The re fore , we hold tha t the re c ord c om

p e l s a c onc lusion tha

t Villa -M e ra z ’ s fa m ily

m e m be rship wa s “ a

re a son” he wa s pe rse c u te d, but not “ a
c e ntra l re a s on” he wa s pe rse c ute d. Ac c o rdingly , we a ffirm the a g e nc y ’ s de nia l of Villa -M e ra z ’ s a

pplic ation for a sy lum

and hum anita

rian a s y lum , hold tha

t Villa
M e ra z e sta

b lishe d a “ c le ar proba

bility ” tha t he would be subje c t to pe rse c ution on
a c c ount of a prote c te d ground, a nd re ve rse the a ge nc y ’ s de n ia l of his a pplic a tion for withholding of re m ova l. W e re m and for the a ge nc y to gra n t withholding of
re m ova l. 2. Prote c tion unde r the

C onv e ntion Against Torture

“ To obta in re lie f unde r C AT, a pe titione r m

ust prove tha

t it is m ore like ly tha n not tha t he or she will be torture d in the c ountry of re m ova l.” Parada , 902
5F.3d at 914; 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). The torture m ust be “ inflic te d by

or a t the instiga tion of or with the

c onse nt or a c quie sc e n c e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a

n offic ia l c a

pa c ity .” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(1); s e e also Garc iaMilian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014) (Prote c tion unde r C AT

“ re quire s a two pa

rt a na ly sis— first, is it more like ly tha n not tha t the [individua l ] will be torture d upon re turn to [the ir] hom e l and; a nd se c ond, is the re suffic ie nt sta te a c tion involve d in tha

t torture .” ). “ C AT’ s im

ple m e n ting re gula

tions e xplic i tly
re quire the a g e nc y

to c onside r ‘ a ll e v ide nc e re le va nt to the possibility

of future torture ,’ and we have re p e a te dly re ve rse d whe re the a ge nc y ha s fa ile d to do so.” Parada , 902 F.3d a

t 914–15; Haile

v . Holde r , 658 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , substa

ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Villa
M e ra z ’ s a pplic a tion for prote c tion unde r C AT. The B IA “ a ffirm [e d ] the Im m i gra tion Judge ’ s de nia l of [Villa -M e ra z ’ s] a pplic a tion for prote c tion unde r the C AT (I.J. a

t 19–20).” In so a ffirm ing, the B IA sta t e d tha t “ the re sponde nt did not subm it a ny e vide nc e to e sta

blish tha t it is m ore like ly

tha n not tha t a ny one in M e x ic o would single

him out for torture in the e ve nt of his re t urn.” This finding is not supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide n c e . Villa -M e ra z ’ s c re dible te s tim ony , de c la ra tions, photogra

phs, a nd othe r e vide nc e c om

pe l a c onc lusion tha

t he wa s torture d in the pa st. Se e 8 C .F.R . §§ 208.18(a)(1), 1208.18(a )(1) (de fining torture ).
6The re c ord a lso c om pe ls a c onc lusion tha

t Villa -M e ra z fa c e s a

pa rtic ula r thre a t of torture in the future . The c arte l ta rge te d Villa -M e ra z ’ s fam ily m e m be rs in the pa st
and thre a te ne d to kill him if the y sa w him in the future
. In a ddition, the

B IA found tha

t Villa -M e ra z did not show tha t “ any public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c t ing in a n offic i a l c a

pa c ity would a c quie sc e ” to his torture . B ut this finding is not supporte d by substa n tia l e vide n c e . Villa -M e ra z wa s only kidna ppe d by the c arte l a fte r the polic e ide ntifie d him . The c ountry
c onditions re

p o rts a nd e x hibits subm

itte d by Villa -M e ra z indic a te wide spre a d
c orruption of loc a l gove rnm e n t offic ia ls a nd tha t loc a l gove rnm e nt offic ia l s
a c quie sc e nc e in— an d

e v e n a c tive ly

pa rtic i pa te in—

the viole nc e , kidna

ppings, a nd
m urde rs pe rpe tra te d by

the c arte ls. Villa -M e ra z ’ s te stim o ny , writte n de c la ra tion,
and the de c la

ra tions he subm itte d from othe rs a lso indic a te the wide spre a d
c orruption of loc a l gove rnm e n t offic ia ls a nd the ir c o nne c tions to a

nd involve m e nt with the c arte l. Se e Parada , 902 F.3d a t 916 (“ [W ] e have he ld tha t the
a c quie sc e nc e sta

n da rd is m e t whe re the re c ord de m onstra te s tha t public offic ia ls a

t
any le ve l— e ve n if not a

t the fe de ra l le ve l—

w ould a c quie sc e in torture the pe titione r is like l y to suffe r.” ); Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 509–10 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ [A] n a

pplic ant for C AT re lie f ne e d not show tha t the e ntire fore ign gove rnm e nt would c onse nt to or a c quie sc e in his torture .” ). W e re v e rse the
7a ge nc y ’ s de c ision a n d hold tha

t Villa -M e ra z is e ntitle d to prote c t ion unde r C AT. W e re m and for the a ge nc y to gra nt C AT de fe rra l re lie f. Se e Av e ndano-He rnande z
v . Ly nc h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1082 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ ‘ [U] n de r the ordina ry re m and rule , we are not pe rm itte d to de c ide a c la im tha t the im m igra tion c ourt ha s not
c onside re d in the first insta nc e . B ut he re , the B IA ha s a lre a dy fully c onside re d [the pe titione r’ s] C AT c la im
. ” (inte rna l c ita t ion om itte d)). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D IN PART , G RANT E D IN PART , and RE M A NDE D.

81 Villa - Meraz v. Barr , No. 17 - 70100 Callahan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part : I agree with the majority’s disposition of Villa

- Meraz’s asylum and withholding of removal claim , but dissent from the holding that Villa

- Meraz is entitled to protection under the CAT. Ra ther, I would remand the CAT issue to the agency for further proceedings. In denying Villa

- Meraz ’ s CAT claim, t he BIA cursorily concluded that Villa

- Meraz failed to present “any evidence” that he would be singled out for torture and failed to establish that public officials would acquiesce in his torture
. In doing so, the BIA erred by failing to consider all relevant evidence as required by the CAT’s imple menting regulations, and by construing the “government acquiescence” standard too narrowly in light of Parada v. Sessions , 902 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2018), and Madrigal v. Holder , 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013). The appropriate remedy for these errors, however , would be a remand for
re consideration of the CAT claim, rather than a conclusive determination on our part . T h is is particularly true because the BIA , in addressing Villa

- Meraz ’ entitlement to relief under the CAT, did not expressly reach whether his claims even rise to the level of torture. 1 Although the BIA found that his harms rose to the

1 T he IJ made a specific finding that “the past harm . . . [was not] sufficient to constitute torture,” but the BIA d id not expressly adopt any of the IJ’s reasons for denying CAT relief. Rather, the BIA provide d its own independent reasons for 

# FILED

JUL 2 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 level of persecutio n for the purposes of his asylum and withholding claims , torture under the CAT is defined by a different standard that is m uch more difficult to meet . See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“ Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture. ”). Even if we personally think that Villa

- Meraz has established a clear probability of future harms rising to the level of torture , 2 that is not our decision to make given the BIA ’ s deficient analysis here
. See Azanor v. Ashcroft , 364 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th Cir. 2004) ( “[ W] e must decide whether to grant or deny the petition for review based on the Board's reasoning rather than our own independent analysis of the record
. ”); Andia v. Ashcroft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“ In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If we conclude that the BIA ’ s decision cannot be sustained upon its denial of the CAT claim, which depart substantively from the specific findings and reasons proffered by the IJ. Thus, our review of the agency’s denial of Villa

Meraz’s CAT claim is limited to th e BIA decision
. See Hosseini v. Gonzales , 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) ( stating that where the “ BIA conduct [s] its own review of the evidence and law rather than simply adopting the i mmigration judge's decision ,” this court’s review “is limited to the BIA's decision, except to the extent the IJ's opinion is expressly adopted.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).
2 In reviewing the totality of the evidence in the record, I am uncertain that it compels the conclusion that Villa

- Meraz established a clear probability of torture if he returns to Mexico. We need not reach this ultimate issue, however, because the BIA ’ s own analysis was incomplete.3 reasoning, we must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues rem aining in the case. ”). P rotection under the CAT is granted only in extreme cases given the difficult legal standard that applicants must overcome to warrant relief
. 3 I see no reason for
us to usurp the agency ’ s role by ordering CAT relief in the first instance , particularly given the circumstances in this case
. Considering that we all agree t o Villa

- Meraz ’ s entitlement to withholding of removal under the INA , he faces no immediate harm from a remand t hat allows the agency to address its overly
c onclusory analysis of his CAT claim
. A s we did in the cases cited by the majority, Pa rad a , 902 F.3d 901 , and Madrigal , 716 F.3d 499 , we should remand for agency reconsideration of Villa

- Meraz ’ s entitlement to relief under the CAT.

3 In 2017, less than 2% of all CAT applications were granted relief. See U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice, Exec
. Office of Immigration Review, S tatistics Yearbook Fiscal Year 2017, 30 (2017) , available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/download
.