N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LORETO QUINTER O -M OLINA, AKA Lore to Quinte ro,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71518 Age n c y No. A093-142-827 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 an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, TASHIM A , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Lore to Quinte ro-M olina

(“ M olina ” ), a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o and form e rly a le ga l pe rm ane nt re side nt of the Unite d State s, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de te rm i nation tha t he wa s ine ligiblefor de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). The B IA 

# FIL ED D EC 27 2016 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.a dopte d a

nd a ffirm e d the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision to deny re lie f unde r C AT. R e vie wing de novo, we c onc lude tha t the B IA e rre d

a s m atte r of la

w in fa iling to aggre gate the pote ntia l sourc e s of torture tha t M olina would fa c e if re m ove d to M e xic o. Pe c h e nk ov v . Holde r , 705 F.3d 444, 449 (9th C ir. 2012). 1. An a p plic ant for re lie f unde r C AT m ust show a

“ g re ate r tha

n 50 pe rc e nt like lihood tha

t he will be torture d” and tha t a public offic ia l will a c quie sc e in tha t torture . Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 508 (9th C i r. 2013) (c iting 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2); C olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th C ir. 2011)). 2. Unde r C AT, torture is “ any a c t by whic h se ve re pa in or suffe ring, whe the r phy sic a l or m e nta l, is inte ntiona l ly inflic te d on a

pe rson. . . .” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). “ Ac ts c o nstituting torture are va rie d, a nd inc lude be atings a nd killings.” Bromfie ld v . Muk ase y , 543 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th C ir. 2008); s e e also 8 C . F.R . § 1208.18; Re y e s v . Ly nc h , No. 14-70686, 2016 W L 6994243, a

t *13 (9th C ir. Nov. 30, 2016) (holding tha t killings c onstitute

torture for the purpose s of C AT). M olina pre se n te d se v e ra l re a sons why he would like l y fa c e torture if re turne d to M e xic o, inc luding thre ats tha t he and his fa

m ily m e m be rs have re c e ive d a

nd killings pe

rpe trat e d a g a inst his fa

m ily m e m b e rs who livein M e x ic o.

23. In de te rm ining whe t he r a pe rson is like ly

to fa c e torture , a

n IJ m ust c onside r a ll e vide nc e of torture in the a ggre gate . C olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d a

t 774. The IJ should a sse ss the pe titione r’ s “ ove ra l l risk of be ing torture d” ra the r tha n

“ tre at ing e a c h pote ntia l sourc e of torture individually .” Id . He re , the B IA e rre d a s a m atte r of la

w whe n it a dopte d a

nd a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de c ision, whic h se pa rate ly c onside re d e a c h

re a son M olina

would fa c e torture but fa ile d to c onside r his risk of torture in the a g gre g ate . B e c a use the B IA a

pplie d a n e rrone ous le ga l sta

nda rd, we gran t the pe tition a

nd re m a nd so tha t it m ay , in the first insta

nc e , a pply the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd. Lope z v . Ashc roft , 366 F.3d 799, 807 (9th C i r. 2004) (c iting Zhe ng v . Ashc roft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th C ir.2003)). 4. In a ddition to showing a gre ate r tha

n 50 pe rc e nt like lihood of torture , a n a pplic ant for C AT m

ust show tha

t the gove rnm e nt is like ly to a c quie sc e in tha

t torture . Madrigal , 716 F.3d a t 508. TheIJ did not de te rm ine whe the r the M e xic an gove rnm e nt would a c quie s c e in M olina ’ s torture . The B IA, howe ve r, c onc lude d that the IJ “ prope rly

de t e rm i ne d tha

t . . . there c o rd is insuffic ie nt to show tha t the M e x ic an Gove rnm e nt would a c quie sc e in or turn a blind e y e to torture .” Whe re , a s he re , the ba sis for the B IA’ s c onc lusion is unc le ar, a re m a n d is re quire d so tha

t the B IA m ay c la rify the ba sis for its de c ision on this issue . Alphonsus v . Holde r , 705

3F.3d 1031, 1044-45 (2013) (c iting De lgado v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th

C ir. 2011)).

Pe tition G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D.

4