NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 21

- 1 209

_____________ JUAN RAMON ABREU ,

Petitioner

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 077

- 030

- 517 Immigration Judge : Jason L

. Pope

______________ Argued on July 1 3 , 202 3

Before: PHIPPS, McKEE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 18, 2024 )

Christopher R. Healy [Argued] Kaitlin L. O’Donnell Troutman Pepper Two Logan Square 18 th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Petitioner2

Brian M. Boynton Holly M. Smith Anne Donohue [Argued] Stefanie N. Hennes David Schor Christin M. Whitacre United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent

______________________ OPINION 

______________________

McKEE , Circuit Judge
Juan Ramon Abreu seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of
his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. 1 An
I mmigration J udge denied Abreu’s application because he found the likelihood that
Abreu would be tortured t o be “ speculative ” and because he found that local police in the
Dominican Republic would make efforts to protect Abreu from torture. The BIA affirmed
on both bases. However , the IJ and BIA failed to consider evidence of explicit death threats received by Abreu and also failed to explain how the evidence supports their
conclusion that local police would protect Abreu

. Because of these errors, we will grant
Abreu ’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).3 I. Where the BIA affirm s and partially reiterat es the IJ ’ s conclusions , we review
both the BIA’s and the IJ’s opinions

. 2 We review legal determinations de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence

. 3 In the immigration context, we set aside the
agency ’ s findings only if a “reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary” after reviewing the record as a whole. 4 To obtain deferral of removal under the Convention Agains t Torture, an applicant must prove that it is “more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed.” 5
An act constitute s “torture” only if it is inflicted “by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of ” the government of the country to which the applicant will be
removed. 6
T he IJ concluded that Abreu ’s fear of future torture was too “ speculative. ” 7 The IJ
reasoned that a substantia l amount of time had transpired since Abreu ’s family members were threatened or assaulted in the Dominican Republic. The IJ also reasoned that there was insufficient evidence connecting the anonymous threats Abreu received and the
assaults he suffered in 2 018 to the persecutors whom Abreu fears. And while t he IJ noted that individuals in the Dominican Republic had communicated threats against Abreu to

2 Saban

- Cach v. Att’y Gen. , 58 F.4th 716, 724 n.23 (202 3) (quoting Blanco v. Att’y Gen. , 967 F.3d 304, 310 (3d Cir. 2020))

. 3 Id. 4 Alexander

- Mendoza v. Att’y Gen. , 55 F.4th 197, 207 (3d Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted)

. 5 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 6 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). 7 A.R. 86.4

Abreu ’s friend, Espinar, the IJ reasoned that these threats were merely “veiled” and “speculative.” 8 The BIA affirmed these findings.
The fundamental problem with the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions, however, is that the IJ appears to have failed to consider evidence that Abreu received explicit death
threats from Tito in 2018. In his affidavit, Abreu averred that Tito sent him text messages “warning . . . that if [ Abreu ] ever return[ ed ] to the Dominican Republic [he would] be killed.” 9 Abreu also submitted an affidavit from Espinar in which Espinar averred that he (Espinar) had encountered Tito in the Domini can Republic, that Tito had said he was “going to kill [ Abreu ],” and that Tito had shown Espinar a gun while declaring that he would use that specific gun to kill Abreu

. 10 On their face, these two affidavits reflect specific and serious threats to Abreu ’s life. But neither the BIA’s nor IJ’s opinion
discusses either Tito’s text messages or his interaction with Espinar . In fact , neither opinion even mentions Tito.
The BIA seems to have believed that the IJ at least reviewed Espinar’s aff idavit, noting that the IJ considered “the letter provided by the respondent’s friend from the Dominican Republic.” 11 But we see no support for that belief in the IJ’s opinion

. The IJ’s opinion refers generally to “statements regarding the conversations th at [Espinar] had with people within the Dominican Republic ” that involved “veiled ” and “speculative

8 A.R. 87. 9 A.R. 247. 10 A.R. 354. 11 A.R. 4.5

threats ” against Abreu

. 12 But this portion of the IJ’s opinion cannot refer to the threat reflected in Espinar’s affidavit because that threat was neither “ veiled” n or “speculative.” There is nothing “veiled” about threatening to kill someone while brandishing the gun
that will be used to commit the killing. And Tito’s promise to kill Abreu

— which he made while demonstrating that he had the means and motive to follow through

— lef t little to speculation

. Perhaps the IJ and BIA believed that the evidence of Tito’s explicit threats should
not be credited or should be disregarded for some other reason

. But if that is the case,
then the IJ and BIA must expl ain why. 13 Absent such an explanation, we can assume only
that the IJ simply ignored this evidence, which precludes us from finding that the IJ’s and the BIA’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. 14
T he g overnment nevertheless argues that we should affirm even though the IJ
failed to consider evidence of Tito’s explicit threats because the BIA also held that government officials would not acquiesce in Abreu ’s torture. W e disagree for at least two

reasons. 15

12 A.R. 87. 13 Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. , 945 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 2019) ( explaining that the IJ and BIA may not ignore evidence, and “if evidence is to be disregarded, we need to know why” (brackets omitted)) ( quoting Myrie v. Att’y Gen. , 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017) )

. 14 Id. (“[T]he agency ‘may not ignore evidence favorable to the alien’”) (quoting Huang v. Att’y Gen. , 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010)). 15 Judge Phipps does not join the analysis as to the second acquiescence rati onale.6

First, because the IJ and BIA failed to consider whether Tito was likely to attempt

to torture Abreu , they necessarily failed to consider how the Dominican government would respond if Tito were to attempt to torture or kill Abreu

. Second, to the extent th e IJ and BIA concluded that the local authorities would protect Abreu from the persecutors he fears

— Tito or otherwise

— this conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence, at least as it is presented in the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions.
The IJ concluded that local authorities would not turn a blind eye to Abreu ’s torture because local police were “receptive” to Abreu ’s family’s complaints in 2008, “investigated” those complaints, and protected Abreu ’s family for a fee

. 16 However, t here is no evidence that the police did anything to investigate the threats Abreu ’s family received in 2008. The only record evidence that could potentially reflect investigative efforts is the police report summarizing the threats . But it appears that thi s police report was prepared only after Abreu ’s daughter asked the police for an update on the case in
2018

— ten years after the threats were made. The only other evidence of a police response is that the police assigned personnel to protect Abreu ’s family for one week
after the threats were made. But this protection had to be paid for , as both the IJ and BIA
noted

. A payment to secure protection from the police seems like a bribe. If this payment

16 A.R. 87.7

was a bribe, then , as a matter of law, the protection it purc hased cannot support the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that the authorities would be willing to protect Abreu

. 17 The Government argues that the price Abreu ’s brother paid the police for protection was not a bribe but a fee for additional services that go beyond the ordinary duties of the Dominican police. But since it appears that the police did not hing else in
2008 in response to Abreu ’s family’s complaint , the Government’s interpretation of the
fee

- for

- protection arrangement is difficult to accept. Further, Abreu has credibly testified that he cannot afford to pay for protection in any event

. It is therefore difficult to see how the availability of protecti on for a fee would support a finding that the local police would protect Abreu

. T here may be other reasons to believe the police would attempt to protect Abreu
from torture or a fatal assault

. Absent further explanation by the IJ and BIA, however , we

cann ot find that the BIA’s conclusion that the local police would protect Abreu is supported by substantial evidence

. 18

17 Cf. Bosede v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 946, 951 (7th Cir. 2008) (“We have said before and underscore here that whether an alien might succeed in escaping persecution or torture through bribery is an irrational and altogether improper consider ation in deciding a claim for asylum or other relief.” ) (first citing Oyekunle v. Gonzales , 498 F.3d 715, 717 (7th Cir. 2007) and then citing Giday v. Gonzales , 434 F.3d 543, 555 (7th Cir. 2006) ). 18 See Kang v. Att ’

y Gen. , 611 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[B]ecause the BIA ignored overwhelming probative evidence produced . . . its findings were not reasonably grounded in the record and thus we accord no deference to the BIA’s decision . . . we find that the BIA’s determination was not based on subst antial evidence. ” ).8 III. For these reasons, we will grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.