N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
IR ENE C H AVEZ-DE-ESTR ADA, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70645 Age n c y No. A092-073-510
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 Fe brua

ry 17, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, TALLM AN, a nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Ire ne C hav e z De Estra d a

(“ C have z De Estra da ” ) pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of de fe rra l of re m o va l unde r the 

# FIL ED FEB 28 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
.

§ 1252(a ), and we grant in pa rt, de ny in pa rt, a nd re m and to the B IA. B e c a use ne ithe r the B IA nor the Im m igration Judge (“ IJ” ) m a de an a d ve rse
c re d ibility

finding, weta

ke C h ave z De Estra da ’ s fa c tua l a lle gations a s true . Aguilar-Ramos v. Holde r , 594 F.3d 701, 704 (9th C ir. 2010). C have z De Estra da te stifie d tha

t Jorge Gonz a le z (“ Offic e r Gonz a le z ” ) – a supe rvising offic e r a t a Tijua na polic e sta

t ion with whom

she worke d a

nd ha d a rom an tic re lat ionship – be a t, ra pe d, a nd thre a te ne d

he r on m ore tha

n one oc c a sion. W e hold tha t the a buse C have z De Estra da

suffe re d at Offic e r Gonz a l e z ’ s ha nds rise s to the le ve l of torture . Se e Av e n dano-He rnande z v . Ly nc h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ R a p e c an c onstitute

torture . . . [a s it] is a

form of a ggre ssion c onstituting a n
e gre gious viola

tion of hum anity .” (a l te ra tions in origina l) (c ita tion omitte d)); id. (c onc l uding tha

t c onduc t c onstitute d torture whe re pe titione r “ wa s ra pe d, forc e d to pe rform ora l se x, be a t e n se ve re ly , a nd thre ate n e d ” ). W e a lso hold tha

t the B IA e rre d in its a sse s sm e nt of whe the r C have z De Estra da fa ile d to sa

tisfy the sta te a c tion prong of her C A T c l a im
. Se e Av e ndano1 The B IA a lso de t e rm ine d tha t C have z De Estra da

wa ive d the argum e nt tha t she is e ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l. C have z De Estra da doe s not a

ppe a l tha t de c ision. The re fore , she ha s wa ive d a ny argum e n ts c o nc e rning he r withholding of re m ova l c la im
. 2He rnande

z , 800 F.3d a

t 1078–79 (“ To re c e ive de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r C A T, [the pe titione r] m

ust show tha

t upon he r re turn to M e x ic o ‘ she is m ore like ly tha n not to be torture d,’ 8 C
. F.R . § 1208.17(a), e ithe r ‘by or at the instigation of or w

ith the
c onse n t or ac quie

sc e n c e of a public

offic ial or other pe r

son ac ting in an offic ial
c apac ity ,’ id. § 1208.18(a)(1).” (e m pha sis a dde d)). Subse que n t to theB IA’ s de c ision, this C ourt issue d Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351 (9th C ir. 2017). W ith re spe c t to theC AT’ s sta te a c tion re quire m e nt, we he ld tha t “ [t] he sta

tute and
re gula tions do not e sta

b l ish a ‘ rogue offic i a l’ e xc e ption to C AT re lie f,” and tha t a public offic ia l ne e d not “

be c a rry ing out his offic ia l dutie s, so long a s he is the
a c tor or knowingly

a c quie sc e s in the a c ts.” Id. at 362. The B IA thus im

prope rly re q uire d C have z De Estra da

to e s ta blish tha t Offic e r Gonz a le z , who the B IA a c knowle dge d wa s a “ public e m ploy e e ,” wa s
a c ting in his offic ia l c a

pa c ity whe n he torture d he r. Se e id. (“ Sinc e the offic e rs
we re a ppa re ntly off-duty whe n the y

torture d B ara

ja s-R om e ro, the y

we re e vide ntly not a c ting ‘ in a

n offic ia l c a

pa c ity ,’ but the re gula

tion doe s not re q

uire tha t the public offic ia l be c arry ing out his offic i a l dutie s . . . .” ). R athe r, C have z De Estra da c ould sa t i sfy the sta t e a c tion re quire m e n t by

showing only

tha t a public offic ia l wa s “ the a c t or” who inflic te d the torture . Se e id. (“ [T] he torture ne e d not

3be both by

a public offic ia l a

nd a lso tha

t the offic i a l is a c ting in his offic i a l
c a pa c ity .” ). Ac c ordingly , we grant C have z De Estra da ’ s pe tition a nd va c ate the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t she fa ile d to sa

tisfy the sta te a c tion prong of her C AT c la im
. W e re m and this c a se to a llow theB IA to a pply the c o rre c t

le ga l sta nda rd unde r Barajas-Rome ro . Se eI.N
. S. v
. Orlando Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16–17 (2002). On
re m and, the a ge n c y

m ust c onside r a ll e vide nc e re le va nt to theproba

bility of future torture , inc luding e v ide nc e of pa st torture , the possibility of re loc ation within M e x ic o, a nd c ountry

c onditions evide nc e . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3); BarajasRome r o , 846 F.3d a t 361; Maldonado v

. Ly n c h , 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba

nc ) (holding tha

t, a lthough the

a pplic ant c arrie s the “ o ve ra ll burde n of proof,” 8 C .F.R . § “ 1208.16(c )(2) doe s not pla c e a burde n on a

n a pplic ant to de m onstra

te tha t re loc a tion within the

propose d c ountry

of re m ova l is im

p ossible be c a use the IJ m

ust c onside r a l l re le va

nt e vide nc e ” ). W e note tha t, a lthough “no
one fa c tor is de te rm inative ,” M aldonado , 786 F.3d a

t 1164, “ c ountry

re ports a re
a c c orde d spe c ia l we ight in re m ova l proc e e dings.” C o le v . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th C i r. 2011); A guilar-Ramos , 594 F.3d a t 705 n.6. Fina lly , we re

je c t C have z De Estra da ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the fa ilure to c onside r Guille rm o Pe re z Pe re z ’ s (“ Pe re z ” ) de c la ration viola

te d he r due proc e ss rights a nd 4hold tha

t the re wa s no due proc e ss viola tion. On re m and from

the B IA, the following e xc h ange oc c urre d be twe e n the IJ a nd C have z De Estra da ’ s c ounse l, R obe rt M c Kinne y : M R . M C KINNEY: The re isn’ t ne w e vide nc e . M y only c o nc e rn, Your Honor, is that y our prev ious de c ision m a de re fe re nc e to [Pe re z ’ s] te stim ony , but the re is no re c ord of that tes t im o n y i n the R e c o rd of Proc e e d ings. IJ: So y ou want a ne w deci s i o n w i t h out re fe re n c e to t hat witne ss? Is that what y ou’ re a sking for, ba se d only o n [C have z D e Estra da ’ s] te stim ony ? M R . M C KINNEY: Ye s, Your Honor. C ontra ry to C have z De Estra da ’ s c onte ntion, the re is no indic ation tha t M r. M c K inne y

m isunde rstood theIJ’ s inquiry . Give n M r. M c Kinne y ’ s re que st tha t the IJ not ba se he r de c ision on Pe re z ’ s te stim ony , C h av e z De Estra da ha s not shown the p roc e e ding wa s so funda m e nta lly unfa i r that she wa s pre ve nte d from
re a s ona bly pre se nting he r c a se . Se e Ibarra-Flore s v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ The B IA’ s de c ision will be re ve rse d on due proc e ss grounds if (1) the p roc e e ding wa s so funda m e nta lly unfa i r that the a lie n

wa s pre ve nte d from
re a s ona bly pre se nting his c a se , and (2) the a lie n de m onstra te s pre j udic e . . . .” (c ita tion a nd quota tion m a rks om itte d )).

5In sum , we grant the pe tition in pa rt a nd re m and to the B IA for
re c o nside ra tion of C have z De Estra da ’ s C AT c la im in light of Barajas-Rome ro . W e de ny the pe tition in pa rt a s to the due proc e ss viola tion c la im
. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART , and RE M ANDE D.

6