N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT J.O.A., Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 22-30 Age n c y No. A213-016-684 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 A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 18, 2023 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , C HR ISTEN, a nd SUNG, C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione r J.O.A., a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of a de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing his a ppe a l of the re m ova l orde r e n t e re d by t he Im m igration Judge(IJ). The IJ de nie d 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



# FIL ED SEP 21 2023 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.Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny his pe tition a s to a sy lum

and withholding, but we

grant the pe tition a s to his C AT c la im . 1. The B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t Pe titione r fa ile d to e sta

blish the c ogniz a

bility of his propose d soc ia l group. Se e Rodrigue z Torne s v . Garland

, 993 F.3d 743, 750 (9th C ir. 2021) (“ W he re the B IA c onduc ts its own re vie w of the e vide nc e an d la

w, rathe r tha

n a dopting the

IJ’ s de c ision, our re vie w is limite d to the B IA’ s de c ision, e x c e pt to thee xte nt the IJ’ s opinion is e xpre ssly a dopte d.” (quoting Rodrigue

z v . Holde r , 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th C ir. 2012))). It is true tha t

“ [e ] vide nc e suc h a s c o untry c o nditions re

ports, e xpe rt witne s s te stim o ny , and pre ss a c c ounts of disc rim inat ory la w s and polic ie s, historic a l a nim o sitie s, a

nd the like m ay e sta blish tha t a group e xists a

nd is pe rc e ive d a s ‘ distinc t’ or ‘ othe r’ in a pa rtic u la r soc ie ty .” Diaz-Torre

s v . Barr , 963 F.3d 976, 980 (9th C ir. 2020) (quoting Pirir-Boc

v . Holde r , 750 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th C ir. 2014)). Howe v e r, a s in Diaz-Torre

s , Pe titione r’ s e vide nc e doe s not e s ta blish tha t M e xic an soc ie ty

vie ws his propose d soc ia l group a s distinc t. Inste a d, his e vide nc e “ pa ints a pic t ure of a ll se gm e nts of the M e x ic an popula tion be ing a dve rse ly a ffe c te d by the bruta lity

of drug c arte ls” and “ indic a te s tha t a lm ost a ny body c an be ta rge te d by the drug c arte ls.” Id. a t 981. W e the re fore de ny the pe tition a s to Pe titione r’ s a sy l um and withholding of rem o v a l c la im s. 22. W e grant the pe tition a s to the C AT c la im . Pe titione r’ s e vide nc e ,

inc l uding his te stim ony , his de c la ra tion, thepsy c hologic a l e va luation, a nd the m e dic a l e va luation, e s ta

blishe s tha

t he wa s subje c te d

to torture . Four a

rm e d m e n took him from

his hom e and be a t him to try to c oe rc e him

to work for the drug c arte l. W he n he re porte d

the inc ide nt to thepolic e , the y sa id the y c ould not do anything, a

nd a n offic e r a dvise d him

to le ave the c ity

be c a use the c arte l m e m

be rs would not le ave him

a l one . A fe w y e ars late r, se ve ra l a rm e d m e n took Pe titione r from his hom e , tie d him

up, forc e d him

to wa tc h a nothe r m an be ing burne d a live and thre a te ne d to do thesa m e to him , burne d him

with c iga re tte s, c ut his finge r to the b one , shot him

in the le g, a

nd thre a te n e d to e nsure he c o uld ne ve r work a s a m e c ha nic a ga in. The polic e a ga in told him the y c ould not do a

nything a nd told him to le ave and not re turn be c a use his na m e wa s on the “ b la c k list,” whic h wa s de sc ribe d a s a

list of pe ople the c arte l sought to e xe c ute . The m e dic a l a nd psy c hologic a l e va luat ions c o n firm the phy sic a l a

nd psy c hologic a l c onse que nc e s of the s e e ve nts. Pe titione r thus ha s e sta

blishe d tha

t he suffe re d

torture , whic h

is “ de fine d a s any a c t tha t inte ntiona lly

inflic ts ‘ se ve re pa i n or suffe ring’ on a pe rson for the purpose s of obta ining inform a tion or a c onfe ssion; punishm

e nt; intim i dation; c oe rc ion; or disc rim ination.” D av ila v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th C ir. 2020) 3(quoting 8 C .F.R . § 208.18(a)(1)). He a lso ha s e sta blishe d a c quie sc e n c e by gove rnm e nt offic ia ls, whic h “ re quire s only tha t [the y ] we re aware of the torture but re m a ine d willfully

blind to it, or sim

ply stood by be c a

use of the ir ina

bility or unwillingne ss to oppose it.” C ole v . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Bromfie ld v . Muk ase y , 543 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d) (a lte ration in origina l)).) The polic e offic e rs’ re sponse s e sta blishe d the i r ina

bility and unwillingne ss to oppose the torture , a

n d the i r a dvic e that Pe titione r sim

ply le ave be c a

use he wa s on the c a

rte l’ s bla c klist shows tha

t “ it is m o re like ly

tha n not tha t he . . . would betorture d if re m ove d to the propose d c ountry of re m ova l.” Planc arte

Sauc e da v . Garland

, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th C ir. 2022) (quoting 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2)). “ [W ] he re torture is suffic ie n tly like ly ,

‘ C AT doe s not pe rm it a

ny disc re tion or provide

for any e xc e ptions.” ’ C

o le , 659 F.3d at 770 (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d) (quoting Edu v . Holde r , 624 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th C ir. 2010)); s e e Dav ila , 968 F.3d a t 1144 (“ An a

pplic ant for C AT re lie f ne e d not show tha

t [] he will be torture d on a c c o unt of a ny pa rtic ula r ground.” ) (a lte ra tion in origina l ). W e the re fore grant the pe tition a s to the C AT c la im . 3. Pe titione r fa ile d to e sta blish tha t his due proc e ss rights we re viola te d. He ha s not e sta

blishe d tha

t “ the c ha lle nge d proc e e ding ‘ wa s so funda m e n ta lly 4unfa ir tha

t [he wa s] pre ve n te d from re a sona bly pre se nting [his] c a se ,’ ” and tha t

“ the outc om e of the proc e e ding m ay have be e n a ffe c te d by

the a lle ge d viola

tion.” Grigory a n v . Barr , 959 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th C ir. 2020) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (first quoting C

r uz Re ndon v . Holde r , 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010); a nd the n quoting C

olme nar v . IN

S , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C ir. 2000)). Although the IJ a ske d m any

que stions, the

que stions for the m ost pa rt we re a im e d at c l arify ing issue s the IJ wa s c onc e rne d a bout. The re c ord thus doe s not indic a te tha t the IJ wa s a c ting a s “ a pa

rtisa n a djudic a tor se e king to intim i date the [a lie n ] and his c ounse l.” Re

y e s -Me le nde

z v . IN S , 342 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th C ir. 2003) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting C

o lme n ar , 210 F.3d a

t 971). The pe tition for re vie w is G RANT E D in par t and DE N IE D in par t.

5