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

C OTO OR TIZ, AKA Jorge C ontre ra s Pa dilla , AKA W a lte r Je ova ny C oto, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-70084 Age n c y No. A074-337-674
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 Nove m

be r 5, 2019, Subm ission W ithdra

wn Nove m

be r 7, 2019 R e -Subm itte d July

15, 2020 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R OSENTHAL, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUL 17 2020 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 Le e H. R ose ntha l, Unite d State s C h ie f Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Te x a s, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r W a lte r C oto Ortiz is a nat ive an d c itiz e n of Hondura s. He pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de n ia l of re lie f unde r the C onve ntion a ga inst Torture(C A T). He c o nte nds tha t the e vide nc e
c om pe ls the c onc lusion tha

t he will m ore like ly

tha n not suffe r se ve re pa in a nd suffe ring with governm e nt a c quie sc e nc e if re turne d to Hondura s . B e c a use he
c ha lle nge s the B IA’ s c ontra ry fa c tua l c o nc lusion, wede fe rre d subm ission of the
c a se pe nding theSupre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in N asrallah v Barr , 140 S. C t. 1683 (2020). The Supre m e C ourt ha d gra nte d c e rtiora

ri in tha t c a se to re vie w whe the r the c ourts of a

p pe a l s la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w fa c t ua l de te rm inations underly ing de nia ls of C A T re l i e f with re spe c t to nonc itiz e ns who ha ve c om m itte d a n offe nse spe c ifie d in 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(C ). N asrallah v. Barr , 140 S. C t. 428 (2019) (m e m .). The Supre m e C ourt ha s now de c ide d that judic ia l re vie w of the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l de te rm inations is not pre c lude d by § 1252(a)(2)(C ) and tha

t suc h re vie w is de fe re ntia l. The a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings m ust be uphe ld unle ss a

re a s ona b le
a djudic ator would bec om pe lle d to re a c h a

c ontra ry c onc lusion. N

a srallah , 140 S.C t. at 1692. W e the re fore have jurisdic tion to de c ide the que s tion pe titione r pre s e nts.

2The e vide nc e C oto Ortiz pre se nte d de m o nstra te d tha t we re he to re turn to Hondura s he would ha

v e m ultiple ta rge ts on his bac k. B e c a

use of his fa

m ily
m e m b e rship, hewould be a

ta rge t for ga

ngs. As m a

ny a s se v e n m e m be rs of his fam ily in Hondura s ha

ve suffe re d ga

n g atta c k s, inc luding ra

pe , bruta l be atings a

nd shootings. As a

re sult of his own prison ga ng m e m be rship pe t itione r be ars tattoos that would m ake him a ta

rge t not only

for ga n gs but a lso for polic e and de ath squa ds in Hondura s. Dr. B o e rm an, a n e xpe rt witne ss, c onc lude d the c ha nc e s of pe titione r’ s e sc a

p ing se rious ha

rm on his re turn we re “ virtua lly none xiste nt.” This
e vide nc e c o m

pe l s the c onc l usion— and the B IA a ppe are d to a gre e
—

that pe titione r would m ore like l y

tha n not fa c e se ve re pa in a

n d suffe ring if re turne d. Se e Quijada-Aguilar v

. Ly n c h , 799 F.3d 1303, 1308 (9th C i r. 2015) (“ C AT c la im s m ust be c o nside re d in te rm s of the a g gre gate risk of torturefrom a l l sourc e s , a

n d not a s
se pa rate , divisible

C A T c la im s.” ). The e vide nc e a lso c om

pe ls the c onc lusion tha

t a public offic ia l would
a c quie sc e in the torture . The re c ord c onta ins ove rwhe lm i ng e vide nc e of polic e
c orruption a

nd e vide nc e tha

t e fforts by

the Hondura

n gove rnm e nt to c ontrol ga ng viole nc e and polic e c o rruption ha ve be e n la

rge ly ine ffe c t ive . The re c o rd be lie s the
a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t due to the gove rnm e nt’ s a nti-c o rruption e fforts, pe titione r ha d fa ile d to m ake the re quisiteshowing of a c quie s c e nc e . The c orruption
3re m a ine d ram pa nt. S e eParada v . Se

ssions , 902 F.3d 901, 916 (9th C i r. 2018) (holding tha

t “ [e ] v ide nc e showing wide spre a d c orruption of public offic i a ls” is

“ highly probative ” a s to gove rnm e nt a c quie s c e nc e ) ;Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 507 (9th C ir. 2013) (theB IA e rrs whe n it c onside rs “ only the [fe de ra l] gove rnm e nt’ s willingne ss to c o ntrol thec arte l a nd not its a

bility to do so.” ) The e vide nc e c om

pe ls the c onc lusion tha

t pe titione r would be ta

rge te d for torture and tha

t the gove rnm e nt would a c quie sc e in it. He is e ntitle d to C AT re lie f. W e the re fore grant his pe tition for re vie w a nd re m and for the a ge nc y to gra nt him de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C AT. Se eAv e ndano-He rnande z v . Ly nc h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1082 (9th C ir. 2015). PE T IT IO N G RANT E D.

4