N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ESW IN NOY-OLLEY, AKA Eswin Nojolle j, Pe t i tione r,
v. R OB ER T M . W ILKINSON, Ac ting Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72367 Age n c y No. A087-528-188
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 Fe brua

ry 4, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd IKUTA a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Eswin Noy -Olle y

pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) dism issing his a ppe a l of a n im m i gration judge(“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a

pplic ation for prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst 

# FIL ED FEB 8 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).Torture (“ C AT” ) and his a lte rnative re que st for post-c o nc lusion volunta ry de pa rture . W e have jurisdic tion to re vie w the de nia l of C AT re lie f unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252, a nd our jurisdic tion to re vie w the de n ia l of volunta ry de p arture is limite d to c o nstitutiona

l c l a im s or que stions of la w. S e e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1252(a)(2)(B )(i), (D); 1229c (f); se e also C

orro-Barragan v. Holde r , 718 F.3d 1174, 1176–77 (9th C ir. 2013). “ W e re vie wthe B IA’ s fa c t-finding for substa n tia l e vide nc e and m ay

grant a pe tition only

if the e vide nc e c om

pe ls a c onc lusion c ontra

ry to the B IA’ s c onc lusion.” Ray a m ajhi v . W hitak e r , 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th C ir. 2019). W e de ny the pe tition in c onne c tion with the C AT c la im

and dismiss the
re m a inde r of the pe tition on jurisdic t iona l grounds. I Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Noy -Olle y

ha d fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of showing tha t the Guate m a l an gove rnm e nt is “ m ore like ly tha n not” to “ a c quie sc e ” to a ny torture of Noy -Olle y by

the ga ng M ara Sa lvat ruc ha (“ M S-13” ). 8 C .F.R . §§ 1208.16(c )(2); 1208.18(a)(1). Re y e s-Re y e s v . Ashc roft , 384 F.3d 782, 787 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ Ac quie sc e nc e . . . is not lim i te d to
a c tua l knowle dge , or willful a c c e pta n c e ; the willful blindne ss of gove rnm e nt offic ia ls suffic e s.” (quota tion m arks om itte d)).

2Noy -Olle y produc e d no e vide nc e of c oope ra tion be twe e n Gua te m a la n offic ia ls a nd M S-13 (or any

othe r gang) in his home town or thene a rby towns whe re M S-13 m e m

be rs a ssa ulte d him . To the c ontra

ry , Noy -Olle y ’ s c ountry
c onditions evide nc e c onta ins only ge ne ra l re fe re nc e s to offic ia l c orruption a t the
nationa l le v e l tha

t m ay hinde r the e ffe c tive polic ing of ga ngs in Gua

t e m a la , while
a lso indic ating tha

t the Guat e m a la

n gove rnm e nt ha s m a de som e progre ss in
c om bating both c o rruption a

nd ga n g viole nc e . Nota

b ly , the only

spe c i fic insta

nc e of c orruption to which Noy -Olle y te stifie d did not re late to the polic i ng of ga ngs, but c onc e rne d a tra ffic stop during which polic e offic e rs pulle d him ove r for a tra ffic infra c tion, a ske d him for m one y , a

nd the n le t him go, without a c ita tion, whe n he re plie d tha

t he did not ha

ve any m o ne y . B e c a use the fore going e v ide nc e doe s not a m ount to “ signific ant e vide nc e e sta blishing gove

rnm e nt c om

plic ity ” in the c rim ina l a c t ivity that “ c onstitute s the ba sis” of Noy -Olle y ’ s C AT c la im , we m ust uphold the

B IA’ s a djudic ation of tha t
c la im
. Andrade -Garc ia v . Ly nc h , 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th C ir. 2016); se e also, e .g. , id. (upholding denia l of C AT re lie f be c a use , inte r a lia , “ te s tim ony tha t a Guate m a la

n polic e offic e r took a

bribe from

a robbe r and re le a s e d him ” did not de m onstra

te tha t the Guate m a la

n gove rnm e n t would a c quie sc e in a ga ng’ s e xtortion of pe titione r); c

f. Madrigal v. Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 510 (9th C ir. 2013)

3(noting “ [v] olum inous” e vide nc e tha t M e xic an polic e “ fre que ntly work[e d] dire c tly on be ha l f of drug c arte ls” in re m anding C A T c la im for the B IA to
c onside r whe the r loc a l or sta te offic ia ls would a c quie sc e to a drug c a rte l’ s torture of the pe titione r); Zhe ng v . Ashc roft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1190–96 (9th C ir. 2003) (re m anding C AT c la i m

whe re t he pe titione r fe are d torture by hum an tra ffic ke rs,
and the re c ord c onta ine d spe c ific e xam p le s of c ollusion be twe e n loc a l polic e and
suc h tra ffic ke rs in the pe titione r’ s hom e provinc e ). To the e xte nt Noy -Olle y re que sts tha t we infe r the gove rnm e nt’ s willful blindne ss from

the she e r num

be r of M S-13 m e m

b e rs in Gua

te m a la , we de c line to do so. Evidenc e of a se rious ga ng proble m

in the c ountry

of re m ova l is not itse lf suffic i e nt to e sta

blish there q

uisitea c quie sc e nc e , a

bse nt pa rtic ula riz e d e vide nc e that offic ia l c orruption e n a

ble s or fue ls tha

t proble m . Se e Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034–35 (9th C ir. 2014). Thepre va le nc e of M S-13 in Gua te m a la is of le ss proba

tive va lue he re in light of the re c o rd e v ide nc e re fle c ting tha t the Guate m a la

n gove rnm e nt ha s a dopte d a nd im ple m e nte d a

ntiga ng m e a s ure s with
som e suc c e ss, a l be it limi te d. Se e id. at 1035.

4II

W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Noy -Olle y ’ s c ha lle nge to the de nia l of his re que st for volunta

ry de p arture be c a

use the B IA de nie d it on a fa c t ua l ba sis, na

m e ly tha t he did not ha ve “ the m e ans to depa

rt the Unite d State s.” 8 U.S.C
. § 1229c (b)(1)(D);
se e a lso 8 C .F.R . § 1240.26(c )(1)(iv). B e c a use Noy -Olle y ’ s c ha lle nge to the de nia l of volunta

ry de pa rture doe s not poseany

que stions of la

w , we la c k jurisdic tion to
re vie w it. 8 U.S.C . §§ 1252(a)(2)(B )(i), (D); 1229c (f); C orro-Barragan , 718 F.3d
at 1176–77. 1 Ac c o rdingly , we dism iss the re m a inde r of the pe tition.
DE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 B e c a use the B IA found tha

t Noy -Olle y

did not m e e t the sta

t utory re quire m e nts for post-c onc lusion volunta ry de pa rture and we c annot re vie w tha t de c ision, we ne e d not re a c h his a lte rnative c h a lle nge s to thevolunta ry de pa rture de c ision. 5