Pursuant to FifthC ircuit Rule 47.5 , th e court has determined that this o pinion should * not be publishe d an d is notprecedent except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule47 .5.4.

We concludethat this appeal was timelyfiled. Marmorato was in federal detention 1 when he file d th e notice , such that the “mailbox rul e” applie s. B ecau se this court receive d th e petition in the mail one day after the deadlinefor its filin g, it must h ave b eenti melymailed. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60257

ANT ONI O MAR M OR AT O, P e tit io n e r , v. ERI C H

. HO LDER , J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L, R esp on d en t
.

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of

t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s B I AN o. A 011- 072- 742

B ef ore D E M O S S , E L R O D , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P et i t i on er A n t on i o M arm orat o app eal s pro se t h e deci si on of t h e B oard of Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls , w h ic h a ffir m e d a n Im m ig r a tio n J u d g e ’ s d e n ia l o f h is ap pl i cat i o n ford e fer ra l of re m o v a l u n d e r th e U n ited N a tion s C o n ven t i on A gainst T o r t ur e ( CA T)

. M ar m o r at o c o nt e nds t hatb o t h t he Boa r d o f I m m i gr ati on 1 A p p e a ls (B IA ) a n d t h e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ( IJ ) a p p lie d th e in c o r r e c t s ta n d a r d in United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 26, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

2 det e r m i ni ng w he t he rt he I t al i an G o ve r nm e ntw o ul d a c qui e s c e i n hi s t ort u re, t hat he r e c e ive d i ne f fe c t ive as s i s t anc e o f c o uns e l , and t hatt he I m m i gr at i o n a nd N atural i zati on Servi ce i s es t opp ed f rom b ri n gi n g rem oval proceedi n gs against h im w h e r e it a c te d w ith m a lic e in d e n y in gh is re q u e s t fo rcit iz e n s h ip
. W e G R A N T the pe ti ti on i n pa rt, an d D E N Yi t i n pa rt.

I . F ACT S AND PROC EDURAL HI S TORY

M ar m o r at o , a na t ive a nd c i t i z e n o f I t al y, b e c am e a l awf ulper m ane nt
r e s i de nto f

t he U ni t e d St at e s i n 19 57
. I n Jul y o f 20 03 , he w as c o nvi c t e d o f t he of fe ns e s o f

c o ns pi r ac y t o i m po r ta nd p o s s e s s w i t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e c o c ai n e, i m por t at i on o f

c oc ai ne, and pos se ss i on w i t h i nt ent t o di st r ibut e c oc ai ne. H e w as sentenced to f

ou rt een years c on f

i n em en t
. W h il e M a rm orat o w as i n carcer ated i n Br o o kl yn, N e w Yor k, he pr o vi ded su bstant i ala s s i s t anc e t o t he O f f i c e o f t he In sp ector G en era l( O IG ) reg a rd i n g t h e ill eg a li m p orta ti on of con trab a n d to i nm at e m em ber s of

It al i an fam i l i es thr ough vi si t or s t o t he fac i l i t y and by fede r al
em pl oye es s uch as c or r ec t i onalof f i c er s and ca se m anager s. Throughout1996 and 1997, M ar m or at o s er ved as a c on fi d en ti ali nf or m antt o a n O I G s pec i al agent
. D uri ng t he per i od M arm ora to as si st ed t he O I G , t he I nspec t orG ener al secured f

ou rt een arres t s r el ated t o i l l egal contraban d i m portat i on , t h e m ost s i gni f i c anto f w hi c h i nvo l ve d ac as e m ana ge rf o rt he Bur e au o f

Pr i s o ns . The i n vest i gati on reveal ed that pri son gu ards w ere bri n gi n g contraban d t o m em bers of I tali an fam i l i es , par t i c ul ar l y a “ m af i a fam i l y c apt ai n” w ho w as house d at M arm orat o’ s i n st i t u t i on . M arm orat o w a s never cal l ed to t est i f y i n a t ri alor pr o c e e di ng, b uthi s s i s t e rt e s t i f i e d r e ga r di ng t he da t e s upo n w h i c h pa ym e nt tr a n s fe r s w e r e m a d e . In A p ri l20 0 8 , th e D ep a rtm en t of H om elan d S ecu ri ty ch a rg ed M a rm ora to
w i t h re m ovalunder 8 U
. S.C

. § 1 227( a) ( 2) (A) (i i i) f orhi s c onvi c t i on o f an ag gr av at e d f

e l o ny. W i t h t he as s i s t anc e o f c o uns e l , M ar m o r at o c o nc e de d t hathe Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

3 w a s rem ov a b l e a s ch a rg ed , an d the IJ ord ere d h i m rem ov ed to It a l y. T h e IJ fo u n d th a t h e w a s s ta tu t o r i l y i n e lig ib le fo rw ith h o ld in go f r e m o v a l d u e to h is
con victio n for a “pa rti cu l a rl y se ri ou s cri m e.” S ee 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3)(B )(i i). M arm orat o sough ta d e fer ra l of rem oval pu rsuan tt o A rt i cl e I II of t h e U n i t ed N a ti on s C on ve n ti on A ga i n st T ortu re ( C A T ) on th e grou n d th a t h i s a ssistan ce to t he O I G w o ul d l e adt o hi s t o r t ur e i n I t al y. H e c l ai m e d t o b e pa r t i c ul ar l y fe ar f ul b e ca u se h is i n f

orm ati on hel ped t h e sec u re t h e convi ct i on of an i n m ate f

or c o nt r ab andv i o l at i o ns , a nd b o t h t he i nm at e a nd t he i nm at e ’ s b r o t he rha d s t r o ng c onnec t i ons t o I t al i an fam i l i es w ho had go ver nm entt i es . F ol l ow i ng a hear i ng, t he I J de ni e d r e l i e f, f i ndi ng t hatM ar m o r at o c o ul d no tde m o ns t r at e a ne xus betw een the t ort u re h e feared a n d t h e n ati on alIt al i an g overnm en t
. T h e I J al so fo u n d th a t a n y l o c a lg o v e r n m e n t o ffic ia l w h o a id e d fa m ilie s o f c r im in a ls in lo c a tin gM a r m o r a to w o u ld b e a c tin ga s a p r iv a te a c to r , a n d th o s e a c tio n s co u ld
n otbe att ribu t able t o t h e govern m en t
. B ased on t h ese f i n di n gs, t h e I J den i ed al lf or m s of r el i ef and or der ed M ar m or at o r em ove d t o I t al y. M ar m o r at o appe al e d t o t he Boa r d o f I m m i gr at i o n Appe al s ( BI A) a r gui ng t h at i tw as suf

f i ci en tf or h i m to be abl e t o show a nex u s bet w een t h e fam i l i es of t h e cr i m i n al s and l ocalgovernm en tagen t s, a n d ad di t i on al l y, tha tthe IJ err ed i n fai l i ng t o f

i nd a nex us be t w e e n t he fe ar e d t o r t ur e and an I t al i an go ve r nm e nt o f f i c i al
. H e a l s o a s s e r t e d t hat hi s c o uns e l w as i ne f fe c t ive f o rfail i ng t o pr e s e nt s u c h e v i d en ce, a n d h e d i sp u ted tha t he h a d be en con victed of a “pa rti cu l a r ly
s e r i o u s c r i me ” o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t h e w a s i n a s t a t e o f d i mi n i s h e d c a p a c i t y . H e a ls o fa u lte d h is fo r m e rco u n s e l fo rfa ilin gto ra is e a n d th e r e b yp r e s e r v e h is
a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t a c te d w ith m a lic e in w r o n g fu llyd e n y in go f h is cl ai m f or c i t i zensh i p, an d f or fai l i n g t o argu e t h at t h e “ st ate c reat ed d an ger” d o c tr in e p r e v e n te d th e g o v e r n m e n t fr o m d e p o r tin gh im w h e r e h e w a s n o w in d a n g e rfr o m h is a id t o t h e g o v e r n m e n t . T h e B I Afo u n d “n o e r r o r” in th e I J ’s de c i s i o n a nd c o nc l ude d t hatM ar m o r at o had fail e d t o sub m i tev i de nc e s ho w i ng he w oul d be t or t ure d, and c onc l udi ng t hathe had fai l ed t o s how t hatt he I t al i an govern m en t w orked i n col l u si on w i t h t h e peop l e w h o m i gh tt ort u re M arm orat o. Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

4 T h e B IAl i kew i se f

ou n d that M arm ora to h a d n o test abli shed t h at hi s c ou n sel
w as i ne f

fe c t ive , s o he w as no ten t i t l e d t o a g r anto f a m o t i o n t o r e o pe n. M a r m o r a to h a s s in c e file da tim e lyp e tit io n fo rre v ie w .

II
. J URI S DI CT I ON AND S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

T h e Im m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t p r o v id e s th a t a n a lie n w h o “is
con victed of a n ag gr a va ted felon y a t a n y ti m e a ft er a d m i ssion i s d ep orta b l e.” 8 U
. S

. C

. § 122 7 (a )(2) (A) (i i i)

. M arm orat o does not di spu t e t h at he w as convi ct ed of a n a gg ra va ted fel on y. A l th ou gh 8 U
. S

. C

. § 12 5 2 (a)( 2 )( C ) ge n era l l y p roh ib i ts j u di ci alrevi ew of

rem oval orders i ssued on the basi s of an al i en ’ s c om m i ssi on of
a n a ggravat ed f

el ony, t he R E A L ID A c tpr ovi des t hatnone o f i ts j u ri sdi ct i on - st ri pp i n g provi si on s “ ‘ sha l lbe const rued as precl u di n g revi ew of consti t u t i on alcl ai m s orqu est i on s of l aw rai sed u pon a peti t i on f or r evi ew f

i l ed
w i th an ap p rop ri a te cou rt of ap p ea l s. ’” A l vara d o de R od rigu ez v. Hol d er , 585 F .3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 4 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (q u o tin g8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D )); seealso A h m ed
v. Mu ka sey , 300 F. A pp’ x 324, 327 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (unp ubl i she d)

. C ons t i t ut i onal i s s ue s a nd q ue s t i on s o f l aw r e ga r di ng t he i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f CA T ar e no e x c e p tio n . S e eA h m e d, 3 0 0 F
. A p p ’ x a t 3 2 7 ; R eyes- G om ez v. G on zal es , 1 6 3 F. A p p ’ x 2 9 3 , 2 9 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (u n p u b lis h e d ); seea lso S aint h a v. Mu ka sey , 516 F .3 d 2 4 3 , 2 4 8 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); T o u s s a in t v . A tt’y G e n e r a l, 4 5 5 F .3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 2 n .3 ( 3dCi r . 2 00 6) ( f

i n di n g t hata c o ur tm ayr e vi e w a CA T c l ai m s ubm i t t e d i n a pro perpet i t i on f

or re vi ew , buti t s “j uri sdi c t i on e xt ends onl y t o c ons t i t ut i onal cl ai m s and qu est i on s of l aw . ” ) (i n t erna lci t ati on s om i t t ed))

. T h u s, w e m ay r evi ew M ar m or at o’ s c l ai m s onl y t o t he ext entthattheyrai se a co l or abl e q ues t i on o f l aw or a con sti tu ti on a lcl a i m . W e rev i ew the B IA ’ s con cl u sion s of law de n ov o, w i th sub st an t i aldef

erence t o i n t erpret ati on s of st atu te s a n d re g u la tion s a d m in i st ered Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

5 by t h e agen cy . See R om ero- R od rigu ez v. G on zal es , 488 F
. 3d 672 , 675 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ).

I I I . DI S CU S S I ON

A . C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e C la im M a r m o r a t o u r g e s th e c o u r tto r e v ie w th e B I A ’s a ff ir m a t io n o f t h e I J ’s concl u si on t h at M arm orat o fai l ed to show t h at he w a s en t i t l ed to rel i ef un der A r tic le II I o f th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e . T h e B I A ’s o r d e rd is m is s in gh is ap pe ale xp r e s s l y ad o pt e d a nd a f f i r m e d, w i t h e xc e pt i o ns d e e m e d ha r m l e s s , t he IJ’ s “ u l t i m ate concl u si on ” t h at M arm orat o ha d n otest abli shed el i gibi l i t y f or
r e lie f u n d e rC A T
. S ee8 C

. F
. R
. §§ 1 2 0 8
. 1 6 (c) (2); 12 0 8 .1 8 (a )(1 ). O u r r evi ew o r di nar i l y i s l i m i t e d t o t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n, b utw he r e , a s he r e , t he BI A ado pt s t he d e c is io n o f t h e I J , a lb e itw it h m o d if ic a t io n s , t h is c o u r tm u s tr e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n . Se eMi k ha e lv . I NS, 1 1 5 F .3 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); s e eals o Zhu v. G o nz ales , 4 93 F
. 3d 5 88 , 5 93 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) ( no t i ng t hatt he c o ur tr e vi e w s t he IJ’ s deci si on w h en t h e I J’ s ru l i n g af fect s the B IA ’ s deci si on )

. M arm orat o argu es t h at bot h t h e I J an d the B IAem pl oyed t h e i n corr ectl ega l s t an da rd f or determ i n i n g w h et h er t ort u re w ou l d be “i n f li cted by or att h e i n st i gati on of or w i t h t h e consent or acqu i esc enceof a publ i c of

f i c i alor ot herper so n ac t i ng i n an o f f i c i alc ap ac i t y. ” 8 C. F. R. § 1 20 8. 18 ( a) ( 1) ( e m pha s i s a dde d)

. H e a l s o c o nt e nds t h at t h e B IAdi d n otapp l y t h e p roper stand ard of revi ew to t h e I J’ s f

i n di n gs of fa c ti n d e t e r mi n i n gt h a tM a r m o r a t o h a d fa i l e d t o s h o w t h a th e h a d n o ts h o wn th a t i t w a s “ m o re li k ely th a n n ot tha t he
. . . w ou l d be tortu red i f rem ov ed ” t o I t al y. § 1208. 16(c ) ( 2)

. Bot h of t hes e c l ai m s c onc er n ques t i ons of l aw , s o w e m ay
r e v ie w th e m . Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

6 1. T h e L eg a lS tan d a rd s Im p l em en ted b y the IJ a n d the B IA F or a pet i t i on er t o be enti t l ed t o a defer ral of rem oval u n der C A T , he m u st sh ow tha t he i s “m o r e li k ely th a n n ot” t h a t “h e [w i l l] b e tortu red i f rem ov ed to t h e proposed cou n t ry of rem oval. ” § 120 8. 16(c ) ( 2)

. A n acti s not consi dered “tortur e” u n d er th e a ct un l ess i t i s “i n fl i cted by or a t t h e instiga ti on of or w i th t he c ons entorac qui es c enc e o f a publ i c of

f i ci a lor ot herper so n ac t i ng i n an o f f i c i alc ap ac i t y. ” § 1 20 8. 18 ( a) ( 1)

. I n hi s o r alde c i s i o n, t he I J e xp l ai ne d t he
a c q u ie s c e n c e in q u ir ya s fo llo w s : I n or derf

orac qui es c enc e t o o c c ur, t he o f f i c er s w ho know t hat t o r t ur e w i l lo c c urha ve to b e a c t i ng i n a n o f f i c i alc ap ac i t y and e s s e nt i al l y i gno r e t he i r dut y. I n t hi s pa r t i c ul ar c as e , t he Res po nde nti s i ndi c at i ng t hati ti s c o r r upto f f i c e r s w ho m i ght be c o m e awar e o f hi s pr e s e nc e , i nf o r m t he m af

i a o f hi s pr e s e nc e , a nd t hen t urn t hei rbac k on t hei rdut i es i n re gar ds t o an y tort ure t hat m i ghtbe i nf

l i c t ed .
. . . Th e C our t f i nds t hatt hi s i s noti n t he o f f i c i al ca p a ci ty of an off

i cer o f th e Itali a n go ve rn m en t. T h e tortu re co n ve n ti on w a s ba sicall y p a sse d by C on gr es s w i th t he pr o vi s i o n o f

pr o t e c t i ng pe o pl e f rom the a c t ivi t i e s o f r o gue govern m en t s w h o ha ve n o regard f o r h u m an ri gh t s orcivi lri gh t s. C at ego r i c al l y, th e Respo ndenthas nots how n t he I t al i an govern m en ti s l i kely to d o th i s, an d as a resul t , t h e C ou rtcann ot f i nd t hatpr iva t e ac t s by i ndivi dua l s , ev e n und e rt he c l o ak o f b e i ng a go ve r nm e nto f

f i c i alw he n t he y ar e a c t i ng o n b e hal f of n ot t he govern m en t of It al y bu ton beh al f of t h i s m af

i a organ i zati on , are not at t r ibut ab l e t o t he I t al i an go ve r nm e nta n d no tc o ve r e d un de rt he tortu re co n ve n ti on . ” M ar m o r at o a r gue s t hatt he I J m i s i nt e r pr e t e d t he pr o pe ra c qui e s c en ce st an da rd by d et erm i n i n g t h at a “c orrupt governm en tof f i ci al” coul d n otbe a “g ov ern m en t off

i ci a l” for th e pu rp ose s of th e l eg a l stan d a rd en u n ci a ted in § 1 2 0 8
. 1 8 (a)( 1 ), an d by de term i n i n g th a t th e “ s ole pu rp ose of th e C A T i s to pr o t e c ta n a l i e n f

r o m a ro gue go ve r nm e ntw i t h no r e s pe c tf o rc ivi lr i ght s . ” The G ove r nm entar gues t hatt her e i s no m er i t t o t he c l ai m t hat t he I J e m pl oye d an i n c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d b e c a u s e i t “ c i t e d t o t h e c o r r e c t r e g u l a t i o n , 8 C. F. R. Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

The Government argu es th at Marmorato waived these argu ments byfailin g to b rief 2 themand by failing to brief his chall enge to theappr opriatestand ardin his brief to the BIA. We reje ct this ar gume nt, as Mar mo rat o didbrief thes e iss uesbe f

o r e the BIA. Although Marmorato’s thorough briefing makes it unnecessary for us to broa dlycon strue his arguments inorderto fin d th emto b e pres erved , wenot e th at hisst atu s a s aprose petitioner entitle s hi m togre ater le ew ayth anh e wo uld b e aff or de d if h e h a d cou n sel. See Haines v. Ke rner , 40 4 U .S. 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) (p ercuri a m). 7 § 1 20 8. 18 ( a) ( 1)

. ” Thi s ar gum e nt i s i nap po s i t e . “ Com m o n s e ns e a s w e l la s t he
w e igh t o f au th o rityre q u ire s th a t w e d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e [IJ ] app l i e d t he
c o r r e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d , n o t s im p lyw h e th e ritst ate dth e co r r e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d .” A l vara d o de R od rigu ez , 58 5 F. 3d at 23 5 ( c i t at i o n and i nt e r nal quo t at i o n m ar ks
o m itted ). 2 W e a gr ee w i t h M ar m or at o t hatt he I J announce d a n e r r oneo us l egal stan d a r d w hen i tdet er m i ned t hatac t s c onduct ed “ und ert he c l oak o f be i ng a govern m en tof

f i ci al” do n otsat i sf

y t h e st an da rd of

§ 1208

. 18(a) ( 1) , a s t h at s ect i on e x p lic i t l y c o v e r s a c ts d o n e b yp u b lic o ffic ia ls a c tin gin th e ir“o ffic ia l ca p a c ity .” A l t hough t he r egul at i on does n otdef i ne “o f f i c i alc apac i t y, ” t he A t t or ney G ener al h a s i n t e r p r e t e d t ha t phr a s e t o me a n “ u n d e rc o l o ro f l a w. ” Se eI n r eY- L- , 23 I. & N . D e c. 2 7 0 , 2 8 5 (A G 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i ng Al iv . Ren o , 237 F
. 3d 591 , 597 ( 6th C i r. 2001) )

. O ur c i r c ui thas notaddr es se d t he age ncy’ s i nt er pre t at i on of “i n an o ff ic ia l c a p a c it y ” in a p u b li s h e d o p in io n , b u t w e a d o p t e d th e A t t o r n e yG e n e r a l’s in te r p r e ta tio n o f “o ffic ia l ca p a c ity ” in a re c e n t u n p u b lis h e d ca s e , A hm e d v. Mu k a s ey . 300 F. A pp’ x 324 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (unp ubl i she d)

. There , w e s t at ed t hat “[t] o p rov e e n tit le m e n t t o p r o te c tio n u n d e rC A T , th e a p p lic a n t m u s t d e m on strate th a t, if r e m o v e d to h is c o u n tr y o f o r ig in , it is m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t t h a t h e w o u ld be tor t u red by, or w i t h t h e acqu i escence of, go vernm en tof f i ci al s act i ng u n d er c o lo rof law . ” Id

. a t 3 2 7 -2 8 (citi n g8 C .F .R
. § 1 2 0 8 .16 (c) (2 )) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e E ig h th C ir c u it , in R am i rez - Peyro v. Hol d er (R a m irez- Peyro II ) , e x p lic itly f o l l o w e d A h m edin “a d o p t[in g ]” a s re a s o n a b le “ th e a g e n c y ’ s in te r p r e ta tio n o f ‘ in Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

C om pa reBen net tv . Pip

pi n , 74 F.3 d 578 , 589 (5th Cir. 199 6) (findingth at an officer’s 3 action was “under color of state law” where a sheriff rape d a woman and used his position to ascert ainwhenh er husband would be home and thre atened toh ave h er thrown in jail if sh e refu se d) wi th Delcambre v. Delcamb re , 63 5 F.2d 40 7, 408(5th Cir. 1 981 ) (per curi am) (findin g no action under c olorof law wh ere a policechief assaulted his sister-in -law over personal argu me ntsab out fa milymatt er s, b ut di d notthre ate nh erwithhisp ow erto arres t)

. Other circuits would find the IJ’s interpretation to b e ine rr ora s w ell , as the Ei ghth C ircuitr ej ecte d an ear- identical form ulationa s erroneou s. See Ra mirez -P ey roI I , 574F .3d at 904(rej ectin g, as amisinterpretation of the “official c apacity” inquiry , theB IA’ s state ment that “eve n assumin g law e nforc ementwoul d co nsent orac quiesce to torture att he han ds of the Cartel, theyagain‘would not be actingunder the preten se of law [b ut] following a purely pers on al purs uit’ b yacquie scin gto th e C art el’sactio n s.”) 8 a n o ffic ia l ca p a c ity ’a s th e e q u iv a le n t o f ‘ u n d e rco lo ro f la w ’a s u s e d in th e civ ilr ig h ts co n te x t.” 5 7 4 F .3 d 8 9 3 , 9 0 0 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W h e n we c o n s i d e rwhe t h e rt h e I J i n t e r p r e t e d “ u n d e rc o l o ro f l a w” a s we w o u ld in a civ il rig h ts ca s e , its le g a l e r r o ris im m e d ia te lya p p a r e n t. O u rcir c u it h as l on g recogni zed that “ an actis u n d e r co l or of l aw w h en i tconst i t u t es a

‘ [m ]is u s e o f p o w e r , p o s s e s s e d b yv ir tu e o f s ta te la w a n d m a d e p o s s ib le o n ly b e c a u s e th e w r o n g d o e r is c lo t h e d w it h th e a u t h o r it yo f s t a t e la w .’” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cau sey , 1 85 F. 3d4 07 , 4 42 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 9) ( quo t i ngMo nr o ev . Pape , 3 65 U
. S. 1 6 7 , 18 4 ( 1 9 6 1 ))

. W e h a ve reco gn i ze d on n u m ero u s occa sion s th a t acts
m o t iva t e d b y an o f

f i c e r ’ s pe r s o nalo bj e c t ive s a r e “ und er co l o ro f l aw” w he n t he of f i cer u ses h i s of

f i ci alcapaci t y t o f

u rt h er t h ose obj ect ives. Se e , e . g. , Towns e nd 3
v. Moya , 2 9 1 F .3 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 1 -6 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); Harri s v. R h od es , 94 F. 3d 196, 19 7 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 996)

. Con f l at i ng an o f

f i c e r ’ s b r e ac h o f

a ut ho r i t y w i t h t he
a b a n d o n m e n t o f th a t a u th o r ity w o u ld a ls o re n d e rm e a n in g le s s 8 C .F .R . § 1208. 18( a) ( 7) , w hi c h st at es t hat“ [ a] c qui es c enc e o f a publ i c of

f i c i alr equi r es t hat t h e pu bl i c of

f i ci al , pri or t o t h e activity con st i t u t i n g t ort u re, ha ve aw aren ess of such act ivi t y a n d thereaft er breach hi s o rhe rl e ga lr e s po ns ibi l i t y t o i nt e r ve ne t o preven t such act ivi t y. ” ( em ph asi s ad ded )

. A pu bl i c of f i ci alw h o uses hi s of

f i ce fo rp e r s o n a l m o tiv a tio n s ca n n o n e th e le s s b e a c tin gin h is o ffic ia l ca p a c ity
. Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

Townsen d v. Mo

ya, 2 9 1 F .3 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 5 (5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 4 9 T h e I J al so m i si n t erpret ed the “ o ff i ci alcapaci t y” i n qu i ry an d the very purpos e o f

t he C A T by s t at i ng t hatt he § 1 2 0 8
. 1 8 ( a) ( 1) i nqui r y c oul d neve rbe sati sf i ed i n a coun t ry l i ke It al y, bu tonl y i n n ati on s w i t h “rogue govern m en t s”
w i th “ no r egar d f

or hum an r i ght s or c ivi l r i ght s. ” W e r ej ec t any not i on th a t a pet i t i oner ’ s ent i t l em entt o r el i ef depe nds upon w het herhi s c ount r y o f r em oval
c o ul d b e i nc l ude d o n s o m e hy po t he t i c all i s to f “ r o gue ” na t i o ns . Rat he r , t he

“ col or of l aw ” i n qu i ry t u rns up on t h e nex u s bet w een t h e peti t i on er, t h e i m proper c o n d u c t o f th o s e o f

fic ia ls in q u e s tio n , a n d th e o ffic e r s ’p e r fo r m a n c e o f th e ir
o f f i c i aldut i e s — no tupo n s w e e pi ng c har ac t e r i z at i o ns of t he na t i o n i n q ue s t i o n. 4 T o t h e contr ary, provi n g act i on i n an of f i cer’ s of f i ci al capa ci t y “ does n otrequi re t hatt he pu bl i c of

f i c i albe exec ut i ng of

f i c i alst at e pol i c y o rt hatt he publ i c of f i c i al be the n ati on ’ s presi den t or som e ot h er of f i ci alat t h e up per echel on s of pow er. R ather .
. . t h e use of of f i ci alau t h ori t y by l ow - l evelof f i ci al s, such a [ s] pol i ce of f ice rs, can w ork t o pl ace act i on s un der t h e col or of l aw even w h ere t h ey are
w i th ou t st a te sa n c tio n . ” R a m irez- Peyro II, 574 F. 3d at901 ( c i t i ng Scr e w s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 2 5 U .S

. 9 1 , 1 1 1 (19 4 5 )) s e eals o Si l v a- R e ngif o v . At ty . G e n. , 473 F. 3d5 8, 6 8, n. 7 ( 3dCi r . 2 00 7) ( no t i ng t hata n “ al i e n c an e s t ab l i sh s uf f i c i e nt
co ll u sio n betw een group s i n t h e cou n try , o r fa ctio n s w ith in th e g o v e rn m e n t itse lf,
w hos e act i ons ar e t ol er at ed, i f notc ondoned b y t ho s ei n go v e r nm e nt .” (e m p h a s is
a d d e d )); O nt une z - Tur s i os v . A sh cr oft , 303 F. 3d 341, 354 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ( consi deri n g evi den ce of a cqu i escence b y l ow - l eveloff i ci al s ( such as l ocalpol i ce)
an d h i gh

- l evelof

f i ci al s ( such as t h e P resi den tof H on du ras) )

. H ere, t h e I J erred in lim itin gits o ffic ia l ca p a c ity in q u ir yto o n lyt h o s e a g e n ts a t t h e h ig h e s t le v e ls
o f nat i o nal go ve r nm e nt , t o t he e xc l us i o n o f t ho s e ag e nt s l o w e r i n t he c hai n of
com m an d w h om M arm orat o cl ai m s w ou l d acqui esce i n t h e an t i ci pa t ed tor t u re. Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

By law , theBIA may r e viewthe IJ’s fi ndin gs of factonly for cle ar err or, 8 C.F.R. 5 § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d)( 3)(i) , an d it“ maynotmaynotr e- weighth e evidencean d sub stitute its o wn ju dgment forth at of the IJabsent clear error.” See Alvarado de Rodriguez v. Holder , 58 5 F .3d 2 2 7 , 2 3 5( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9); see a lso 8 C.F. R. § 1003. 1(d)( 3)(iv) (“ Excep t fortaking adm inis trative notice of commonlyknown facts
. . . the Board will not e ngage in factfindin g in the cour se of de ci din gapp eals .”). 10 W h ere t h e B IA ad opted t h e IJ’ s deci si on w i t h am en dm en t s, w e m u stal so r e vi e w t he B I A’ s dec i s i o n t o de t e r m i ne w he t he rt he l e ga le r r o rt hati nfe c t e d t he I J d e c is io n a ls o p e r m e a t e s th e B I Ao p in i o n . W e fin d th a titd o e s . T h e B I A ’s
m i st ake es se nt i al l y t r ac ks t he sa m e pat h as t hat of t he I J. T h e err or here i s not
as c l e ara s i tw as i n t he I J o pi ni o n, a s t he BI A di d no tr e s t at e t he I J’ s s w e e pi ng gen eral i zati on t h at n o act i on by a pu bl i c of f i ci al i n It al y coul d b e consi dered
ac qui e s c e nc e w he r e I t al y w as n ota r o gue g o ve r nm e nt
. Buti n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he rM ar m o r at o c o ul d s ho w t hatt o r t ur e w ou l d be i nf l i c t e d wi t h t he “a c q u ie s c e n c e o f a p u b lic o ffic ia l o ro th e rp e r s o n a c tin gin a n o ffic ia l ca p a c ity ,” 8 C. F. R. § 1 20 8. 18 ( a) ( 1) , i tfaul t e d M ar m o r at o f o rfai l i n g t o s ho w t hatt he nat i o nalgo v e r nm e ntw ou l d be w i l l f u l l y bl i n d or ot h erw i se acquies ce i n t ort u re. A s s t ated abov e, “ t h e use of of f i ci ala u th o rity by l ow - l evelof f i ci al s, such a [ s] pol i ce of

f i cers , can w ork t o pl ace act i on s un der t h e col or of l aw even w h en t h ey a re w i th ou t st a te sa n cti on , ” R a m irez- Peyro II, 574 F
. 3d at 901, an d su ch acti on

“ und er col orof

l aw ” i s suf

f i c i entt o s at i sf

y t he r equi r em ent s of § 1208. 18( a) ( 1) ; se e In re Y-L -, 2 3 I. & N
. D e c. 27 0 , 2 8 5 (A G 2 0 0 2 ). P u bl i c of f i ci al s’acqu i escence t o t or t ure i s notr es t r i c t ed t o t he uppert i er s of go ver nm ent

— i tm ay be d e m o n s t r a t e d b yth e co r r u p tio n o f th e lo w e rle v e ls o f g o v e r n m e n t a s w e ll. B ec ause t he B I Ai nc o r p o r a t e dt heI J ’ s m i s und er st andi ng of t he “ of f i c i alc apac i t y” req u i rem en t i n to i ts acq u i esce n ce inq u i ry , this qu es tio n m u st be rem a n d ed to t h e B IAt o be deci ded un der t h e proper st an da rd. M arm orat o al so c h al l en ges t he B I A ’ s a n a l ys i s of t he f i ndi ngs of

fac tunderl yi ng t he t or t ure i nqui r y. W e 5
c o nc l ude t hatt he BI A sh o ul d ha ve t he o ppo r t uni t y t o a ddr e s s t he s e q ue s t i o ns Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

11 i n t he f

i r s ti ns t anc e und e rt he pr o pe rl e ga ls t and ar d a s di s c us s e d he r e i n. A ccord i n gly, w e d o n ot ad d ress the fa ctu a lf i n d i n gs ch a l l en ge s at th i s p oin t. B . C la im f

o r E s to p p e l B a s e d o n A lle g e d W r o n g fu l D e n ia l o f C itiz e n s h ip M ar m or at o al so ar gues t hat t he r em oval pro c ee di ngs agai nst hi m m ustbe te r m in a te d b e c a u s e th e U n ite d S ta te s is e q u ita b lye s to p p e d f r o m d e n y in gh is
c i t i z e n s h i p w h e n t h e “ I N S a c t e d p u r p o s e f u l l ya n d d e l ib e r a t e l y[ t o ] d e n y[h i m] ci t i zensh i p ou t si de the bou n ds of l aw . ” To t h e extent t h at h e rai ses h i s es t opp el cl a i m sep a ra tel y f

rom h i s a rg u m en t t h a t his cou n sel w a s i n effective in fail i n g to
r ai s e t hi s a r gum e ntb e f o r e t he I J, M ar m o r at o has n ot p r o vi de d a ny ar gum e nt
s u p p o r tin gth is co u r t’s a b ili tyto g r a n t h im re lie f th r o u g h e q u ita b le e s to p p e l. S ee A n d rad e v. G on zal es , 4 5 9 F. 3 d 5 3 8 , 5 4 5 n. 2 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ I t i s uncl ear w h eth er eq u i tab l e es top p el can ev er a p p l y to th e G ov ern m en t, b u t i n an y e ve n t, eq u i tab l e es top p el w i l ln ot l i e a ga i n st t h e G ov ern m en t as a g a i n st priva te litig a n ts .” (c ita tio n a n d in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d )); s e ealso Moos a v. I NS , 1 7 1 F .3 d 9 9 4 , 1 0 0 3 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h h e a l l e g e s t h a tI NS engage d i n m i sc onductw hen i tdeni ed hi s pet i t i on f orc i t i ze nshi p m or e t han th ir ty y e a r s a g o , t h e r e c o r d r e v e a ls th a t h e w a s a g a in d e n ie d cit iz e n s h ip o n A p r il 14, 2008 bec ause he di d notm ee tt he st at ut or y re qui r em entof es t abl i shi ng t hat h i s paren t s naturali zed befor e hi s ei gh t een t h bi rt h da y. M arm ora to h a s not
ar gued t hatany ac tof m i sc onductpr eve nt ed hi m f r om m aki ng s uch a s how i ng, or that thi s det erm i n ati on w as i n accurate. Th eref ore, w e D E N Yhi s pet i t i on f or r e v ie w o n th is g r o u n d
. CO NC L US I ON Acc o r di ngl y, M ar m o r at o ’ s pet i t i o n f o rre vi e w i s G RA N TE D I N PAR T and D E N IE D I N P A R T
. W e VA C A T E the B IA ’ s af f i rm an ce of

t h e I J’ s den i alof M arm orat o’ s m ot i on f or deferralof re m o val. O n R E M A N D , t h e B IAm u st
c o ns i de rw he t he rM ar m o r at o w i l l , m o r e l i ke l y t han no t , b e t o r t ur e d, a nd
w he t he r t hat t o r t ur e w i l li nf l i c t e d b y o ra tt he i ns t i ga t i o n o f o rw i t h t he c o ns e nt Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 60257

12 or acqui escence of

a pu bl i c of

f i ci alat an y l ev e l o f

governm en tor ot h er person a c ti n g u n d e rco lo ro f la w . S ee§§ 1208. 16(c ) ( 2) ; 1 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(1 ). In m a k in gth is determ i n ati on , t h e B IAm u strevi ew t h e fact
- f i n di n gs of

t h e IJ fo r cle ar err or on l y. T h e B IAi s als o in s tru cted to rem a n d to t h e IJ f or a n y a d d i ti on a lfa ctf i ndi ngs t hatar e nec e s s ar y f o rt he BI A t o m ak e i t s de t e r m i nat i o n. As r e m and i s ne c e s s ar y, w e do no tr e ac h t he M ar m o r at o ’ s c l ai m t hathe w as de ni e d d ue p r o c e s s b yin e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. W e D E N Yth e p e tit io n in s o fa ra s it
c o n c e r n s h is re q u e s t fo re s to p p e l. Case: 09-60257 Document: 00511091820 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/26/2010