# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 14 63

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Arm an do Ro m ero -So ria no

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 21 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Arm an do Ro m ero -So ria no

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__

__ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__

__ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Apri l 2 , 20 19 Fi le d: Apri l 5 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re ERIC KSON, W OLLMAN, and KOBES, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

In th es e co ns ol id at ed m at te rs , Sal va do ran ci ti z en Arm an do Ro m ero -So ria no pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of (1 ) an or de r of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n Ap p e a l s ( B IA) di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al fro m th e d eci si on of a n i m

m ig rat io n ju dg e (IJ ), whi ch de ni ed hi m st at ut or y wit hh ol di ng o f rem ov al an d rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e (CAT) (No

. 18 -1 46 3) ; an d ( 2 ) a n o rd er of th e BIA de nyin g hi s m ot io n to

reo pe n p ro ceed in gs (No. 1 8- 21 55 ).

Our rev ie w of th e reco rd le ad s us to co nc lu de th at –c on tra ry to th e as se rti on in hi s pe ti ti on –R om ero -So ria no was affo rd ed su ffi ci en t du e pr oc es s be fo re th e ag en cy , an d he has no t est ab li sh ed an y fu nd am en ta l pro ced ur al erro r. See Al va -Arel la no v. Ly nc h, 81 1 F.3 d 10 64 , 10 66 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w an d bu rd en of pr oo f). W e al so co nc lu de th e BIA d id no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g th at Ro m ero
So ria no was in el ig ib le fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al be cau se he ha d be en co nv ic te d of
at le as t on e pa rti cu la rly se rio us cri m e an d was a da ng er to th e c om m un it y

. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(B) (ii ) (al ie n is no t el ig ib le fo r st at ut or y wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al if Att or ne y Gen er a l d e c i de s th at al ie n, ha vi ng be en co nv ic te d by fin al jud gm en t of
pa rti cu la rly se rio us cri m e, is da ng er to co m m un it y ); 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .16 (d )(2 ) (s am e, fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al un de r th e CAT); Arb id v. Hol de r, 70 0 F.3 d 37 9, 38 3 (9 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (s ta nd ard of rev i e w); se e al so Gue rrer o v. W hi ta ke r, 90 8 F.3 d 54 1, 54 3 (9 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (cat eg or ie s of pa rti cu la rly se rio us cri m es in cl ud e ag gr av at ed fel on ie s

carr y in g an ag gr eg at e te rm of at le as t 5 ye a r s i n p ris on , an d al l ot he r cri m es

-2

-de te rm in ed to be pa rti cu la rly se rio us ba se d on a fact -s pe ci fic in qu iry); Tian v. Hol de r,

57 6 F.3 d 89 0, 89 6- 97 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s et ti ng fo rth fact or s t o b e co ns id ered in de te rm in in g wh et he r cri m e was pa rti cu la rly seri ou s) . W e fin d no m eri t to Ro m ero
So ria no ’s co nt en ti on th at th e “ pa rti cu la rly se rio us cri m e” pr ov is io n is

un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e. See Guerr ero , 90 8 F.3d at 54 5 (reject in g arg um en t bas ed

on Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51 (2 01 5) an d Ses si on s v. Dim ay a, 13 8 S. Ct

. 12 04 (2 01 8) , th at th e pa rti cu la rly se rio us cri m e pr ov is io n is no t un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

va gu e on it s face ; a n a l ys is un de r th e st at ut e req ui res as se ss m en t of wha t th e al ie n

“ act ua ll y di d,” an d a pp li es “ on ly to re al -wo rld fact s” ).

W e al so fin d no erro r in th e de ci si on to de ny Ro m ero -So ria no ’s cl ai m fo r de ferr ed rem ov al un de r th e CAT, as a reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d co nc lu de th at th ere

was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o f a l ik el ih oo d o f to rtu re an d th at Ro m ero -So ria no fai le d
to es ta bl is h go ve rn m en t acq ui es cen ce. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 12 08 .16 (c)( 2) , 12 08 .18 (a)( 1) ; Garci a-M il ia n v . Ly

nc h, 8 25 F.3d 94 3, 9 45 (8t h Ci r. 20 16 ) (d eci si on s are rev ie wed
to de te rm in e if th ey are su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d are rev ers ed on ly if
pe ti ti on er sh ows ev id en ce was so co m pe ll in g th at no reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d fai l
to fin d in hi s fav or ); Garci a-M il ia n v. Hol de r, 75 5 F.3 d 10 26 , 10 34 -3 5 (9 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (g ov ern m en t was no t wil fu ll y bl in d to vi ol en ce whe re st ep s ha d be en ta ke n to co m ba t th e type of vi ol en ce pe ti ti on er all eg ed ); cf. Ram ire z-Pe y ro v. Hold er, 574 F.3 d 89 3, 89 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (d is ti ng ui sh in g cas e in vo lv in g wid es pr ead pa rti ci pa ti on by po li ce in ha rm fu l act io ns , a n d t h e g o ve rn m en t’s ge ne ral kn owl ed ge of th e act iv it y , fro m

cas es whe re a go ve rn m en t is m erel y un ab le to co nt ro l th ird -p art y to rtu rers ). Fi na ll y , we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e BIA’s de ni al of Ro m ero -So ria no ’s m ot io n to

reo pe n. See Varg as v. H o l d e r , 5 6 7 F.3 d 38 7, 39 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s ta nd ard of

rev ie w).

The pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w are d en ie d. Se e 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-