N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR C OS ANTONIO LOM ELI, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 07-73250 Age n c y No. A017-224-401
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 M a

rc h 3, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE, B EA, a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. M arc os Lom e li pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of his c la im of Unite d State s c itiz e nship a

nd his a pplic ation for de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT), a n d c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion that Lom e li did not ac quire de rivative c i tiz e n ship from his m o the r unde r 8 U.S.C
. 

# FIL ED MAR 11 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.§ 1401(a )(7) (1952). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a n d we a ffirm the j udgm e nt of the distric t c o urt a nd de ny Lom e l i’ s pe tition for re vie w. The gove rnm e n t wa s not e quita bly e stoppe d from

de ny i ng tha

t Lom e li’ s m othe r m e t

the re quire m e nts of § 1401(a )(7). The Im

m igration a

nd C ustom s Enforc e m e nt (IC E) offic e r who de c ide d not to plac e an im m i gration de ta ine r on Lom e li following his re le a se from prison la c ke d the a uthority to a djudic ate Lom e li’ s c i tiz e nship sta

t us, a n d the re fore his c o nc lusion wa s not binding on the gove rnm e nt. C

f. W atk ins v . U.S. Army , 875 F.2d 699, 707–08 (9th C ir. 1989); W agne r v . Dir., Fe d. Eme r

ge nc y Mgmt. Age nc

y , 847 F.2d 515, 519 (9th C ir. 1988). Nor did thegove rnm e nt e n ga ge in the sort of “ de libe ra te lie or a patte rn of fa lse prom ise s ” tha

t e sta blishe s a ffirm at ive m isc onduc t. Soc o p-Gonzale

z v . IN S , 272 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba nc ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The gove rnm e nt’ s thre e -m onth de la y in produc ing the 1968 sta te m e nt fa lls fa

r short of the k ind of de l ay

tha t c ould giverise to e s toppe l. Se e Morgan v
. Gonzale s , 495 F.3d 1084, 1092 (9th C ir. 2007); J aa v . U.S. IN

S , 779 F.2d 569, 572 (9th C i r. 1986). In a

ny e ve nt, ne ithe r the “ a

pplic ation of thedoc trine of e stoppe l” nor the

“ invoc ation of e q

u ita ble powe rs” a

uthoriz e s a

c ourt to c onfe r c itiz e n ship in viola tion of thelim i tations im

pose d by C ongre s s. IN

S v . Pangilinan , 486 U.S. 875, 884–85 (1988). 2Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Lom e li fa ile d to show tha t he is m o re like ly

tha n not to betorture d upon his re turn to M e x ic o . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). The B IA took into a c c ount thee v ide nc e surrounding Lom e li’ s 1969 e nc ounte r with the polic e , but tha t singlee nc o unte r doe s not c om pe l
a de t e rm ination tha

t Lom e li is like ly

to be torture d upon his re t urn to M e xic o m o re tha n 40 y e ars late r. The re ports from the State De pa

rtm e nt a nd Am ne sty Inte rnationa l indic ate tha

t the M e xic a

n gove rnm e nt is m aking e fforts to im prove c onditions for me m

be rs of the LGB T c o m

m unity , an d do not indic ate tha t gove rnm e nt offic ia ls e nga ge or a c quie sc e in disc rim ination a g a inst or violenc e towa rd hom ose xua l s. C

f. Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , No. 09-71461, 2014 W L 555138, a t *6 (9th C ir. Fe b
. 13, 2014). TheB IA re fe re nc e d a n d a pplie d the c orre c t sta nda rd for C AT c la im s , a

nd we re j e c t Lom e li’ s a

rgum e n t to thec ontra

ry . JUDG M E N T AFFIRM E D, PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3