N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ARLOS ENRIQUE M ONTIELGUER R ER O, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-73949 Age n c y No. A077-300-601
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 A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : N.R . SM ITH a

nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. C arlos M o ntie l-Gue rre ro, a native an d

c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for
re vie w of the de nia l by

the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) of his a pplic ation 

# FIL ED MAY6 2020 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 Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.for withholding of rem ova l a nd C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT) prote c tion. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), and we grant the pe tition. 1. M ontie l-Gue rre ro a pplie d for withholding of re m ova l, a s se rting tha

t his “ life or fre e dom

would be thre ate ne d” if he re turne d to M e xic o be c a use of his

“ m e m be rship in a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group.” S

e e Ahme d v . K

e i sle r , 504 F.3d 1183, 1199 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A)). On a ppe a l, the gove rnm e nt a

rgue d tha t M ontie l-Gue rre ro a l le ge d a ne w soc ia l group, whic h he did not e xha u st be low. 1 W e a gre e tha t M ontie l-Gue rre ro re phra se d the title of his propose d soc i a l group. Howe ve r, re vie wing the re c ord, his de sc ription of his propose d soc i a l group ha s not c ha

nge d. B e fore the im

m igration judge (IJ), M ontie l-Gue rre ro de sc ribe d his group a s a “ ve ry unique pa

rtic ula r group of pe ople who a re e a sily ide ntifie d, distinc t from

just a ny othe r de porte e s.” M ontie lGue rre ro the n de sc ribe d him s e lf a s a pe rson “ a

p proxim ate ly

6 fe e t ” with “ fa ir skin, fa ir e y e s,” and a

C a uc a sia n a ppe aranc e . B e fore the B IA, M o ntie l-Gue rre ro argue d that he ha s im

m uta ble t ra its a s shown by

“ t he offic e rs’ sta

te m e nt a b out M r. M ontie l not looking M e x ic an a nd not be ing M e xic an.” He furthe r a rgue d tha t

“ phe n oty pic a lly ” he “ ha s c ha

ra c te ristic s distinguishing [him ] from the la rge r

1 At ora l argum e nt, M o ntie l-Gue rre ro’ s c ounse l c onc e de d tha t he fa ile d to e xha ust this issue an d withdre w the withholding of rem ova l c la i m . C ounse l ha s now file d a

m otion to withdra

w the c onc e ssion (Dkt. No. 45), whic h we grant. 2c ulture , re ga rdle s s of e thnic ity .” Fina lly , in his opening brie f be fore this c ourt, he
a ga in a rgue s tha t his group c o nta ins im

m uta b le c ha ra c te ristic s, be c a

use “ the M e x ic an a

uthoritie s ide ntifie d him

a s a non-M e xic an m igra

nt without na

tiona l tie s and the re in susc e ptible to the ir c rim ina l sc he m e .” Ne ithe r our c ourt nor the B IA ha s spe c ific a l ly a d dre sse d whe the r a propose d
soc i a l group’ s titleor the pe titione r’ s de sc ription of tha t group is the

c ontrolling de line a tion. Howe v e r, the Attorne y Ge ne ra l ha s sugge ste d tha t, “ [i] n a na ly z ing the s e c la im s, a djudic at ors m ust be c are ful to foc us on thepa rtic ula r soc ia l group as it is de fine d by the a pplic an t a nd a sk whe the r that groupis distinc t in thesoc ie ty in que stion.” Se e Matte r of L-E-A- , 27 I. & N. De c . 581, 594 (A.G. 2019); se e also Matte r of W -Y-C - & H-O-B- , 27 I. & N. De c . 189, 191 (B IA 2018). Thus, in light of the

dispa rity be twe e n the propose d soc ia l group’ s titleand its de sc ription, were m a

nd this m atte r ba c k

to the B IA to c la

rify M ontie l
Gue rre ro’ s propose d soc ia l group. Se e IN S v . Orlando Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 17- 18 (2002) (pe r c uria

m ). 2. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the B IA’ s de c ision re ga

rding C AT
re lie f. Although the

IJ a ddre sse d se ve ra l re a sons why M ontie l-Gue rre ro fa ile d to
e sta blish e l igibility

for C AT re l ie f, the B IA (a pply ing c le ar e rror re vie w) lim ite d its de c ision to the

c onc lusion tha

t M ontie l-Gue rre ro fa i le d to show “that he would

3m ore like ly

tha n not be torture d

at the instiga

tion of or with the

a c quie sc e nc e . . . of
a public offic ia l a c ting in his or he r offic i a l c a

pa c ity .” W e are lim ite d to re vie wing those “ re a sons e xplic itly

ide ntifie d by

the B IA.” Se e Te k

lev . Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008). M ontie l-Gue rre ro’ s ha rm sta rte d with loc a l polic e offic e rs ta rge ting him , a

rre s ting him , c ove ring his he a d, a nd bringing him

to a
re side nc e whe re in the offic e rs told theoc c upa nts (who turne d out to be drug
sm uggle rs) that “ the y

got som e body

e lse to he lp the m

out.” Howe ve r, in the
c onte xt of C AT re lie f, the B IA did not spe c ific a lly a ddre ss a ny of the fore going
a c tions ta ke n by the loc a l polic e offic e rs in its de te rm ination tha t public offic ia ls would not a c quie sc e in his torture . W e the re fore are una ble to de te rm ine whe the r the B IA c onside re d the ir role and a pplie d the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd unde r Madrigal
v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 509-10 (9th C ir. 2013), or this C irc uit’ s subse que ntly de c ide d c a s e , Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 363 (9th C ir. 2017). W e the re fore re m and this issue ba c k to the B IA to c onside r M ontie l -Gue rre ro’ s e ligibility for C AT re lie f in light of those c a se s. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D.

4