1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLIVER ROSAS ROSAS

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 23

- 916 Agency No. A088

- 980

- 977

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Subm itted July 1 6 , 2024 Pasadena , California
Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges

. Oliver Rosas Rosas (“Rosas”) , a native and citizen of Mexico , seek s review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ( “ BIA ” ) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s ( “ IJ ” ) denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture ( “ CAT ” ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. Where, as here, “the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and the law, [the c ourt]

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JUL 30 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

reviews only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s
decision.” Cole v. Holder , 659 F.3d 762, 769

– 70 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Eneh v.
Holder , 601 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2010))

. We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. See Flores
Molina v. Garland , 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022). W e grant the petition for the
reasons below

. Rosas bases his application for CAT protection on his fear that he will be killed or tortured by a cartel or law enforcement if removed to Mexico. He
contends that because he is a former gang member with noticeable, gang

- related
tattoos, a cartel will forcefully target and recruit him and torture or kill him if he refuses to join them

.

“ To receive CAT protection, a petitioner must prove that it is ‘ more likely
than not ’ that he or she would be tortured if removed. ” Lalayan v. Garland , 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). In evaluating the probability of torture under CAT, “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall
be considered.” Cole , 659 F.3d at 770 ( quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)). Although the agency is not required to “discuss each piece of evidence submitted,”
where “highly probative” or “ potentially dispositive ” “ evidence is submitted, the BIA must give reasoned consideration to that evidence.” Id. at 771

– 72. Failure to do so amounts to legal error. Id. ; see also Antonio v. Garland , 58 F.4th 1067, 10773

(9th Cir. 2023) (“[W] here there is any indication that the agency did not consider
all of the evidence before it ... the decision cannot stand .” (cleaned up)). Here, w e conclude that t he agency committed legal error because it failed to give reasoned consideration to highly pro bative evidence about Rosas’s risk of torture by cartels. For example, t he BIA’s decision concludes that Rosas does not face a particularized risk of torture but never mentions t he expert declaration from a prominent reporter on cartel networks and government corruption, wh ich
describe d how Rosas matches the age and profile of young men targeted by cartels. Similarly, the agency found that Rosas has not specifically identified any similarly situated gang members who have been tortured upon removal to Mexico, but failed

to ack nowledge t he evidence he submitted about two different Mexican citizens who were tortured upon deportation

— including one who was a former gang
member and had an identical tattoo on his hand

. Ultimately, t he BIA’s analysis suggests it did not adequately review the evidentiary record. In light of these omissions , we cannot conclude that the BIA
“consider [ed] all of the evidence before it

. ” Cole , 659 F.3d at 771

– 72. We
therefore GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA ’ s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this disposition

. Having granted the petition on the merits, we DENY the pending motion s for stay as moot

. PETITION GRANTED
. VACATED and REMANDED.