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

M IENTO-HER

NANDEZ, AKA Pe rdo Ve rdie r,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71988 Age n c y No. A206-784-435
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 Subm itte d July

8, 2021 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS an d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C ALDW ELL, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUL 12 2021 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ka re n K. C a ldwe ll, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ke ntuc ky , sitting by de signa tion.R oge lio Sa rm ie nto-He rna

nde z , a native and c i tiz e n of M e xic o, se e ks re vie w of a de c i sion of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm i ng the de c ision of
an Im m igration Judge(IJ) to de ny his a pplic a tion for a s y l um , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), and we grant the pe tition for re vie w in pa rt. The B IA e rre d by

fa iling to a ddre ss Sa

rm ie nto’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t he wa s
e ligiblefor a sy lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l be c a

u se he ha s a

we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution from

priva te a c tors in M e xic an m e n ta l institutions whom the M e x ic an gove rnm e nt wa s una b le or unwilling to c ontrol. Se e Rahimzade h v

. Holde r , 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th C ir. 2010). B e c a use “ IJs a nd the B IA are not fre e to ignore argum e n ts ra i se d by a pe t itione r,” the a g e nc y

m ust a ddre ss this a

rgum e nt
on re m and. S

e e Monte s-Lope z v . Gonzale

s , 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting Sagay dak

v . Gonzale

s , 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th C ir. 2005)). The B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t Sa rm ie nto did not e sta

b lish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution a t the ha nds of the M e xic an a

uthoritie s is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm inat ion tha t Sarm ie nto is not e ligible for C AT re lie f be c a use he did not e sta

blish tha t it is more
2like ly

tha n not tha t he will be torture d by

or with thea c q

uie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l upon re turn to M e x ic o . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2); Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th C ir. 2019). Thec ountry c o nditions re

ports do not de m onstra

te tha t Sarm i e nto is pe rsona lly

at risk of future torture or tha t a ny M e x ic an offic i a l ha d the spe c ific inte nt to inflic t suffe ring upon pa

tie nts with
c hronic m e nta l he a lth issue s re quire d to e sta blish a n e ntitle m e nt to re lie f unde r C AT. Se e J

i ang v . Holde r , 754 F.3d 733, 740 (9th C ir. 2014); Ac e v e do Granados
v . Garland

, 992 F.3d 755, 765 (9th C i r. 2021). Sa rm ie nto fa ile d to point to a ny othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord to support his c l a im
. Se e Garc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 792 (9th C ir. 2014). PE T IT IO N G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART . 1

1 C osts sha ll be taxe d a g a inst there sponde nt. 3