N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FR EDY ALB ER TO SANDOVALLEM US, AKA Fre di Albe rto Sa ndova l, AKA Fre dy

Albe rto Sa

n dova l, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70378 Age n c y No. A055-808-064
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 ay 16, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , WARDLAW , C irc u it Judge , a nd M ORR IS, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED SEP 11 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.

* * 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 B rian M . M o rris, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa tion.Fre dy Albe rto Sa

ndova l-Le m

us (“ Sandova l” ), a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the im m igrat ion judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his 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” ). B e c a

use San dova l wa s found re m ova ble on a c c ount of a

n a ggravate d fe lony c onvic tion, we m ay

re vie w only

those fa c t

ua l issue s tha

t a re re late d to the
a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of re lie f on the m e rits. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(C ), (D); Pe c he nk ov v . Holde r , 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th C ir. 2012). B e c a use the B IA a dopte d the IJ’ s de c ision but also indepe nde ntly re vie we d the e vide nc e an d la w, we re vie w both de c i sions. Se e Ali v . Holde r , 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny Sandova l’ s pe t ition for re vie w. 1. Sandova l wa s c onvic te d of (1) a n atte m pte d le wd a c t upon a

c hild unde r fourte e n a nd (2) c onta c ting a

c hild with the

inte n t to c om

m i t a spe c ific c rim e . The
a ge nc y found tha

t the se c onvic tions, whic h a rose out of the sam e inc ide nt,
c onstitute d a

pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e re nde ring Sa ndova l ine ligiblefor withholding of rem o v a l. B e c a use tha t wa s a thre shold de te rm inat ion c onc e rning Sandova l’ s e ligibility

for re lie f—

ra the r tha n a n a djudic ation on the

m e rits— we do not ha ve jurisdic tion to re v ie w the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l finding. Se e P e c he nk ov , 705

2F.3d at 448. Howe v e r, we m ay re vie w le ga l or c onstitutiona l que stions re late d to the a ge nc y ’ s a

n a ly sis. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D). Sandova l ra ise s one le ga l issue . He c onte nds tha t, in de te rm ining tha

t his
c rim e wa s pa

rtic ula rly se rious, thea ge nc y

im pe rm i ssibly re lie d on the de sc ription of the c rim e in a

Pre -Ple a R e port. A proba

tion offic e r pre pa

re d tha t re port by
sum m ariz ing, a

m ong othe r things, a

polic e re p ort from

San dova l’ s a

rre st. Tha

t polic e re p ort, a

nd in turn, the

Pre -Ple a R e port, re c ounte d the sting ope ra tion tha t le d polic e offic e rs to Sa

ndova l, a s we ll a s Sa

ndova l’ s purporte d sta

te m e nts to the offic e rs who a

rre ste d him
. In im m igration proc e e dings, dueproc e ss re quire s only tha t e vide n c e is

“ probative and its a d

m ission is funda

m e nta lly fa i r.” Sanc he

z v . Holde r , 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th C ir. 2012) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting Espinoza v
. IN S, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th C i r. 1995)). In a ddition, the a g e nc y ha s inte rpre te d the withholding of
re m ova l sta

tute to a llow it to c onside r “ a ll re lia ble inform ation” in a

pa rtic ula rly
se rious c rim e de te rm inat ion. In reN –A–M– , 24 I. & N. De c . 336, 342 (B IA 2007). This inc lude s “ the c onvic t ion re c ords a nd se nte nc ing inform ation, a s we l l a s othe r inform a t ion outside

the c onfine s of a

re c ord of c onvic tion.” Id. In Anay a-Ortiz v
. Holde r , 594 F.3d 673 (9th C ir. 2010), we de fe rre d to tha t inte rpre tation. Id. at 678.

3The Pre -Ple a R e port m e t the due proc e ss sta nda rd for a d m i ssion. There port
wa s proba

tive of the se riousne ss of Sa ndova l’ s c onvic t ion: it de sc ribe d his
e le c tronic c om

m unic a tions with a

n offic e r pre te nding to bea thirte e n -y e ar-old
c hild, a nd his sta te m e nts to a

rre sting offic e rs a dm itting tha t he wa s a ware of the
c hild’ s a ge . Its a dm ission wa s a lso funda m e nta lly fa ir. He arsay

is a dm issiblein im m igration proc e e dings. Se e Sanc he z , 704 F.3d a

t 1109. This inc lude s polic e re ports. Se e Rizk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088–91 (9th C i r. 2011). M ore ove r, we have he ld tha

t it is funda

m e nta lly fa ir to a dm i t a

gove rnm e nt doc um e nt e ve n whe n the pe t itione r c ha lle nge s its m e m o ria liz ation of his sta te m e nts. Se e Sanc he

z , 704 F.3d a

t 1109. The Pre -Ple a

re port c onta ins fa c ts tha

t m ay be c onside re d in a

pa rtic u la rly
se rious c rim e de te rm inat ion. Though we have sugge ste d tha

t the re m a y be lim its to the use of a

polic e re port, se e Alphonsus v . Holde r , 705 F.3d 1031, 1047 n.15 (9th C ir. 2013), thea ge nc y ’ s a na ly sis did not im

plic ate any

of those hy

pothe tic a l lim its. Sa ndova l did not spe c ific a lly disputethe fa c ts in the Pre -Ple a R e port, but
m e re ly te stifie d tha

t he c o uld not re m e m

be r c e rta in de ta ils a

bout his c onvic t ion. In
a ddition, the a ge nc y

did not re ly

on the re port be y ond the fa c ts supporting Sandova l’ s c onvic tion.

42. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r C AT. Sa

ndova l bore the burde n of proving tha t it wa s “ m ore like ly

tha n not that he . . . would betorture d if re m ove d” to El Sa lva dor. N uru v . Gonzale

s , 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th C ir. 2005) (a lte ra tion in origina l ) (quoting Al-Sahe r v . IN S , 268 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th C ir. 2001)). Sandova l did not a d d

uc e e vide nc e of pa st torture , whic h “ is ordina rily the princ ipa l fa c tor” supporting a n a pplic ant’ s e ligibility

for C AT prote c t ion. Se e id.
a t 1218; se e also Edu v . Holde r , 624 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th C ir. 2010). He did pre s e nt c o untry

re ports showing viole

nc e a g a inst theLGB T c om m unity in El Sa lva d or, inc luding violenc e pe rpe trate d by polic e . One re p ort doc um e nte d e le ve n re porte d m

urde rs of LGB T individual s in 2008, twenty -thre e in 2009, a n d te n in 2010. Howe ve r, the atta c k s we re not so pe rva sive a s to c om pe l the c o nc lusion tha

t Sandova l m e t the high ba r for C AT re lie f—

that he would m o re like ly tha n not be torture d. Furthe r, though Sa

ndova l’ s fathe r and two othe r fam ily m e m be rs we re a tta c k e d in El Sa lva dor, the e vide nc e did not show tha t the pe rpe trators we re ta rge ting his fa

m ily and thus tha

t the y would se e k him

out. R athe r, the e v ide nc e indic a te d tha

t the atta c ks we re fina

nc ia lly m otiva te d. Additionally , one of Sandova l’ s unc le s ha s c ontinue d to livein El Sa lva d or without be ing ha rm e d. His
5fa the r ha s a lso be e n sa fe during num e rous re turn visits to El Sa lva d or, a s ha s his gran dm othe r. This e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Sa ndova l did not fa c e a high risk of be i ng atta c ke d upon re turn. Se e Santos-Le mus v . Muk a se y , 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [B ] e c a use Santos-Le m

us’ s m othe r ha s re m a ine d sa fe ly in his hom e town, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B oa rd’ s finding tha

t it is not
m ore like ly

tha n not tha t Sa ntos-Le m us will betorture d by

or with thec onse nt or
a c quie sc e nc e of the Sa lva dora n gove rnm e nt upon re turn.” ), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013). M ore ove r, the re is no e vide nc e tha

t the Sa lva dora

n gove rnm e nt would a c quie sc e in a ny future torture pe rpe trate d a ga inst Sa ndova l. Though the

polic e fa ile d to inve stiga te the
a tta c k on one of his fa

m i ly m e m be rs, the y inve stiga

t e d the two othe rs. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

6