N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JEAN C ARLOS OR

DONEZ-GAR

A Y, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72311 Age n c y No. A079-152-042
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 and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : LEAVY, W . FLETC HER , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Je an C arlos Ordone z -Ga

ray pe titions for re vie w from a B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de c ision upholding the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture , a nd a ffirm ing the Im

m igration Judge ’ s de te rm ination tha t he is 

# FIL ED

JAN 22 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.ina d

m issibleunde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(6)(C )(ii). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we grant the pe tition. Ordone z -Garay

first ra ise s c la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l by

two
a ttorne y s. “ Ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l a

m ounts to a

viola tion of dueproc e ss if ‘ the proc e e ding wa s so funda m e nta lly unfa ir tha

t the a lie n wa s pre ve nte d from
re a s ona bly pre se nting his c a se . ’ ” Mohamme d v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th C ir. 2005) (quoting Marav illa Marav illa v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th C ir. 2004)). “ To m ake out a

n ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e c la im , a

n im m igra nt m u st show (1) that c ounse l's pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt, a nd (2) tha t c ounse l 's de fic ie nc y

c a use d pre j udic e .” N

e had v . Muk

ase y , 535 F.3d 962, 967 (9th C ir. 2008). W e find pre j udic e whe re c ounse l’ s de fic ie nt pe rform anc e m ay hav e a ffe c te d the outc om e of the p roc e e dings; wedo not re quire pe t itione rs to show “ t hat the c o unse l's ine ffe c tive ne s s de finitive l y c h ange d the outc om e .” Mohamme d , 400 F.3d a t 793. Ordone z -Garay ’ s first a

ttorne y c o nc e de d be fore the IJ tha t Ordone z -Garay ha d fa lse l y c la im e d to be a Unite d Stat e s c itiz e n. An a ttorne y is not ine ffe c tive in
c onc e ding da

m a g ing fa c ts whe re she c om e s to he r de c ision “ a fte r c a re fully
we ighing a ll the re le va

nt fa c ts a nd e xploring the

ava ila ble le ga l options.” SantiagoRodrigue z v . Holde r , 657 F.3d 820, 832 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , howe ve r, nothing in the h e aring tra

nsc ripts or in the

attorne y ’ s re sponse to Ordone z -Garay ’ s inquiry

2le tte r sugge sts tha t she e xplore d

the possibility

of ra i sing a

re tra c tion de fe nse to the fa lse c l a im to c itiz e nship, de spite a c le ar ba sis for suc h a

de fe n se in the doc um e nts
a t he r disposa l, a

nd e ve n though a

finding of ina dm i ssibility ba s e d on a fa lse c la im to c i tiz e nship ha s the “ d

ra stic im pa c t” of a c ting a s a

“ life t im e ba

r” to a dm i ssibility
. Se e Munoz-Av ila v .Holde r , 716 F.3d 976, 981 (7th C i r. 2013). This fa ilure to c onside r an obvious ba sis for re lie f fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

n da rd of profe ssiona l
c om pe te nc e and wa s the re fore de fic ie nt. In spite of the first a

ttorne y ’ s c onc e ssions, the IJ e xe rc i se d he r disc re tion to pe rm it Ordone z -Gara

y ’ s se c ond a

ttorne y to put on e vide nc e re g arding the c h arge d fa lse c l a im to c itiz e nship. S e e 8 C .F.R . § 1240.10(c ), (d). Although the se c ond
a ttorne y ha d am ple re sourc e s a

nd a de quate opportunity

to pre pa re a de fe nse , he
re fuse d “ o n princ iple ” to offe r any e vide nc e or e lic it te stim o ny from his c lie nt, due to a n utte rly unsupporte d

be lie f that his c lie n t’ s due proc e s s rights ha d be e n viola te d. “ An attorne y 's ‘ unre a s ona ble fa i lure to inve stiga

t e and pre se nt the fa c tua l
and le ga l ba sis of he r c lie nt's c l a im would itse lf am ount to ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of
c ounse l.’ ” Ahme d v . Muk ase y , 548 F.3d 768, 773 (9th C ir. 2008) (a lte ra tions
om i tte d) (quoting J

ie Lin v
. Ashc roft , 377 F.3d 1014, 1025 (9th C ir. 2004)). Ordone z -Garay ’ s se c ond c ounse l’ s fa ilure to c onte st the c ha rge of fa lse ly

c la im ing
c itiz e nship fe ll be l ow a

n obje c tive sta

n da rd of profe s siona l c om

p e t e nc e . 3The se attorne y s ’ de fic ie n c ie s pre judic e d Ordone z -Garay . Ordone z -Garay ha s a c olora ble c la im tha t he wa s una

ware of the c onne c tion be t we e n Pue rto R ic an birth a nd Unite d State s c itiz e nship, a s we ll a s a pote ntia lly via ble re tra c t ion de fe nse . The IJ prope rly

signa le d he r willingne ss to listen to Ordone z -Ga ra y ’ s ve rsion of e ve nts a

t the borde r ra the r tha

n re ly ing sole ly

on the R e c ord of Sworn Stat e m e nt. Ha d Ordone z -Ga ray ’ s attorne y s pe rform e d c om pe te ntly , the y

m a y have de fe a te d the c ha

rge . W e the re fore hold tha t both of Ordone z -Garay ’ s attorne y s re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. C onc e ssions in re m ova l proc e e dings a re not binding if the c onc e ssions we re m a de unde r “ e gre gious c irc um sta nc e s,” inc l uding whe re the c onc e ssions “we re the
re sult of unre a s ona

ble profe ssiona l judgm e nt.” S antiago-Rodrigue

z v . Holde r , 657 F.3d 820, 830-32 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting Matte r of Ve l asque z , 19 I. & N. De c . 377 (B IA 1986)). B e c a

use c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive in c onc e ding the fa lse c l a im c ha rge , Ordone z is fre e , on re m and, to pre se nt e vide nc e re ga rding his intent, une nc um be re d by the im prope r c onc e ssions of his prior a ttorne y . W e the re fore grant the pe tition a n d orde r that Ordone z -Garay be pe rm itte d to a m e nd the ple a dings a

nd to offe r e v ide nc e on the fa lse c la im to c itiz e nship
c ha rge , inc luding e vide nc e on whe the r his re tra c tion wa s tim e ly
.

4W e a lso note four e rrors in the de c i sions be low. First, the B IA found tha

t

“ [b] y the tim e the re sponde nt fa ile d prim a ry inspe c tion, a

nd wa s re fe rre d to
se c o nda ry , the opportunity

to tim e ly re c ant ha d pa sse d .” W e c onstrue this sta te m e nt to m e an tha

t Ordone z -Garay

c ould not, a s a

m a tte r of la

w, tim e ly re c ant following primary

inspe c tion. S

e e Ruiz-De l-C

id v . Holde r , 765 F.3d 635, 639 (6th C ir. 2014) (tre a ting simila r la ngua ge by

B IA re ga rding tim e ly

re c antation a s a que stion of la

w). R e vie w ing de novo, se e Fak hry v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th C ir. 2008); De lgado v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1095, 1106, n.15 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba

nc ), we hold tha

t the B IA inc orre c tly

sta te d the la w. Our c a se la

w re quire s only

tha t a re tra c tion be m a de with suffic ie n t prom ptne ss tha t “ an inte ntion to de c e ive c annot rightly be drawn." Se eLlanos-Se narillos v . Unite d State s , 177 F.2d 164, 165-66 (9th C ir. 1949). The 2.5-hour pe riod tha t pa sse d be twe e n the a lle ge d fa lse sta te m e nt a nd the re tra c tion, doe s not, sta n ding a lone , m ake his re c antation untime ly
. Se e , e .g. , Ruiz-De l-C

id , 765 F.3d a

t 638-39, 641 (holding tha

t re c a ntat ion wa s tim e ly

de s pite four-y e ar ga

p, a s pe titione r re tra c te d fa lse sta te m e nt a bse nt a c tua l or im

m i ne nt e xposure ). Se c ond, substa

ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the IJ’ s fa c tua l findings. The IJ inc orre c tly

de t e rm ine d tha

t “ [w] he n the offic e r found doc um e nts be longing to R e sponde nt a

nd his brother, R e sponde nt a nd his brother t

he n a dm i tte d tha

t the y 5we re from

Ve ne z ue la .” The only

e vide nc e e sta

blishing a tim e line , the Inc ide nt R e port from

the se c o nda

ry inspe c tion point, una

m biguously sta

te s tha t Ordone z Garay ha d a lre a dy re tra c te d by

the tim e the a ge nt disc ove re d the doc um e nts. C f. Valade z-Munoz v . Holde r , 623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th C i r. 2010) (“ [W ] he n a pe rson suppose d ly

re c a nts only whe n c onfronte d

with e vide nc e of his pre va ric a tion,”
re c a ntation doc trine is una

va i la ble ). Third, the B IA a

pplie d the wrong le ga l sta nda rd to Ordone z -Garay ’ s a sy lum
and withholding c la im s ba se d on m e m be rship in thepa

rtic u la r soc ia l group

“ m ilita ry de se rte rs.” Ordone z -Garay te stifie d to re ports from

othe r soldie rs tha

t de se rte rs we re loc ke d in a room inde finite ly

and be a te n with stic ks, a

nd othe r re ports from

his siste r that de s e rte rs we re som e t im e s shot in the stre e t. On a ppe a l, the B IA uphe ld the IJ’ s de nia l of re lie f on the ground tha t Ordone z -Garay ’ s te stim ony a bout the tre a tm e nt of de se rte rs wa s “ n ot supporte d by the c ountry c onditions evide nc e of re c ord.” In pre -R EAL ID Ac t c a se s like the one at ba r, se e J ose ph v
. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 n.3 (9th C ir. 2010), theB IA is prohibite d from re quiring tha

t the pe t itione r produc e ge ne ra l c ountry c onditions evide n c e to c orroborate c re dible te stim ony . Ladha v
. I.N .S., 215 F.3d 889, 900-01 (9th C ir. 2000). The IJ found Ordone z -Garay c re dible , a

n d the B IA a c c e pte d tha

t de te rm i nation. Se e Edu v . Holde r , 624 F.3d 1137, 1143, n.5 (9th C ir. 2010)
6(holding tha

t B IA ha d " a c c e pte d" IJ's fa vora ble c re dibility

de te rm i nation whe re B IA did not e xplic i tly

de te rm ine c re dibility

and no a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation wa s m a de ). On re m and, the IJ a nd B IA should c onside r our re c e nt de c isions in H

e nrique z -Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ), Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499 (9th C ir. 2013), a nd Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351 (9th C ir. 2017), in de te rm ining whe the r “ m ilita ry de se rte rs” are a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group a

n d whe the r Ordone z -Garay is e ligiblefor re lie f. Fourth, the IJ a

buse d he r disc re t ion in de ny ing Ordone z -Garay ’ s m o tion to
re ope n on the ba sis of c ha

nge d pe rsona l c irc um sta

nc e s a n d c ha nge d c ountry c onditions. The

IJ a pplie d the wrong le ga l sta nda rd in re quiring tha

t the e vide nc e

“ show a fundame ntal c ha nge of c irc um sta

n c e s .” (e m

pha sis in origina

l). T he proffe re d e vide nc e ne e d only have be e n “ m a te ria l.” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(3). The IJ furthe r e rre d in c onc luding tha t e vide n c e showing a

n “ inte nsify ing of [c ountry ]
c onditions”

c annot wa

rrant a m otion to re ope n. Se e Malty v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th C ir. 2004). B e c a use the B IA a

p plie d the c o rre c t le ga l sta nda rd on

7de novo re vie w, howe ve r, this se c ond e rror wa s ha rm le ss. 1 Se e Singh v . Holde r , 591 F.3d 1190, 1198 (9th C ir. 2010). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Ordone z -Garay wa s not pe rse c ute d in the pa st on theba sis of politic a l opinion, a nd sim ila rly , tha t he ha s not e sta

blishe d a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution on a c c ount of politic a l opinion. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(42); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13. Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the

B IA’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t Ordone z -Garay

fa ile d to show tha

t it is more like ly tha n not tha t he will be torture d if re turne d to Ve ne z ue la
. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(b); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). G RANT E D in pa

rt, DE NIE D in pa

rt, a nd RE M ANDE D on a

n ope n re c ord for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition.

1 W e ta ke judic ia l notic e , Gafoor v
. IN S , 231 F.3d 645, 655-56 (9th C ir. 2000), of the fa c t tha

t in the y e a

rs sinc e the B IA’ s de c ision, Nic olá s M a duro ha s re pla c e d Hugo C háve z a s Pre side nt of Ve n e z u e la , and tha t Ve ne z ue la

is c urre ntly unde rgoing signific ant politic a l a nd e c onom ic turm oil. Our de c ision toda y is not inte nde d to pa ss upon them e rits of a ny pote ntia l future m otion to re ope n, should Ordone z -Garay

file one . 8