N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KAR INA ELIZAB ETH PONC E-ELIAS, AKA Este fany Ponc e -Elia s ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-70808 Age n c y No. A208-449-743
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 M arc h 15, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M UR G U IA and C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEFKOW , *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED APR 13 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 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 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 Joa n H. Le fkow, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r, a native and c itiz e n of El Sa l va dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (B IA) de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ations for withholding of rem o v a l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e grant the pe tition
and re m and to theB IA for furthe r c onside ration. 1 The ope n i ng brie f pre pa

re d by pe titione r’ s c ounse l c onta ins se ve ra l e rrors. M ost c onc e rning, these c tion of thebrie f a ddre ssing pe t itione r’ s C AT c la im
a ppe ars to ha

ve be e n writte n for a

n unre late d c a se . This se c t ion of thebrie f re fe rs to pe titione r a s “ a

c onve nie nc e store e m

ploy e e [who] wa s robbe d at gun point” and thre ate ne d with be ing kidna ppe d. The se fa c ts do not a ppe a r a ny whe re in the
a dm inistra

tive re c ord for pe titione r, and the only re c ord c ita

tion in this se c t ion
re fe rs to the re c ord in a

n e n tire ly diffe re nt c a se . Although this e rror wa s
c onspic uously

ra ise d in the gove rnm e nt’ s a

nswe ring brie f, pe titione r’ s c ounse l did not a tte m pt to a c knowle dge , e xpla in, or c orre c t this oversight. 1. The B IA’ s c onc l usion tha t pe titione r’ s propose d pa rtic ula r soc ia l group
wa s inc ogniz a

ble wa s not supporte d by

the c a s e -by -c a se ana ly sis re quire d by the B IA’ s pre c e de n ts a s e xpla ine d in our re c e nt de c ision in Diaz-Re y n oso v . Barr , 968

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we re c ite only those fa c t s ne c e ssa

ry to re solve the issue s on a p pe a l. 2F.3d 1070 (9th C ir. 2020). Spe c ific a lly , the B IA c onc lude d pe titione r’ s propose d

soc i a l group of “y oung wom e n who a re a buse d by the ir fathe rs in El Sa l va dor a nd who a re una ble to fle e be c a

use the y are a lso ta

rge te d by the c rim ina l ga

ngs in El Sa lva d or” wa s “ n o t c ogniz a ble be c a use it is de fine d with re fe re n c e to the pe rse c ution itse lf.” B ut “ t he m e re m e ntion of ha

rm doe s not c ate goric a lly disqua lify an othe rwise c ogniz a

ble soc ia l group.” Diaz-Re y noso , 968 F.3d a

t 1085. R athe r, the B IA m

ust c onduc t a

c a se -by -c a se ana ly sis to de t e rm ine whe the r the group is “ de fine d e

x c lusiv e ly by the fa c t tha

t its m e m be rs ha ve be e n subje c te d to ha rm .” Id. at 1086 (e m

pha sis a dde d ) (quoting Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227, 242 (B IA 2014)). B e c a use the B IA fa ile d to c onduc t the re quire d c a se by -c a se ana ly sis he re , we re m and pe titione r’ s a sy lum and withholding c l a im s to the B IA for furthe r c onside ra tion of in light of Diaz-Re y noso. 2 2. The B IA a

pplie d the inc orre c t le ga l sta

nda rd whe n it c onc lude d pe titione r
wa s not e ntitle d to prote c tion unde r C AT. The B IA re a sone d “ [pe titione r] ha [d] not shown tha

t a ny o ne in the El Sa lva dora n gove rnm e nt would affirmative ly
c onse n t or ac quie

sc e to he r torture ” (e m

pha sis a dde d) . This is a

n inc orre c t sta te m e nt of the sta

n d ard a pplic a ble to C AT c la i m s. It is we ll e sta blishe d tha

t the

2 Though theB IA invoke d M atte r of A-B- in its de c ision, pe titione r’ s brie f urge s us to re m and to the B IA for c onside ra t ion of tha t c a se . At this point, the i nte rve ning a

uthority tha t re quire s re c onside ra tion is Diaz-Re y noso . 3gove rnm e nt’ s t ac it c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e to tortureis suffic ie nt to e ntitle an
a pplic ant to C AT re lie f. Zhe ng v . Ashc roft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1196 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ The c orre c t inquiry

. . . is whe the r a

re s ponde n t c an show tha t public offic ia ls de m onstra

te ‘ willful blindne ss’ to the torture of the ir c i tiz e n s by third pa rtie s, or a s sta te d by the Fifth C irc uit, whe the r public offic ia ls ‘ would turn a blind e y e to torture .’ ” (c ita

tion omitte d)). B e c a

use “ a ffirm ative ly

c onse nt or a c q

uie sc e ”
c onnote s a

highe r de gre e of c ulpa

bility tha n m e re “ a c quie s c e nc e ,” “ aware ne ss,”

“ willful blindne ss,” and “ willful a c c e pta n c e ,” the B IA a

pplie d a highe r le ga l sta nda rd to de ny

pe titione r’ s c la im

for C AT re lie f. Se e Orne las-C h av e z v . Gonzale s , 458 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th C ir. 2006). Ac c ordingly , we re m a n d to the B IA to re c onside r pe titione r’ s c la im for C AT re l ie f unde r the a ppropria te sta nda rd. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D; RE M ANDE D.

4