NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MA GUADALUPE PARRA SANTACRUZ ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 72819 Agency No. A208

- 926

- 475

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 16, 2021 Submission Vacated June 9, 2022 Resubmitted January 11, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: BERZON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON, * * District Judge. Concurrence by Judge RAWLINSON. Ma. Guadalupe Parra Santacruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) order dismissing her appeal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JAN 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, an d relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review “denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence.” Yali Wang v.
Sessions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) . W e grant the petition and remand

. 2
1. T he a gency’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by
substantial evidence

. Mrs. Parra provided detailed, complex, and coherent testimony about the kidnapping and eventual murder of her son, her fruitless
attempts to compel a serious police investigation , and threats she received from
both government officials and suspected cartel members as she investigat ed the

case herself

. The inconsiste ncies highlighted by the a gency are either trivial in light of other evidence, adequately explained by Mrs. Parra, or not inconsistent at all.

T he a gency ’s determin ation that certain parts of Mrs. Parra’s testimony w ere implausible is itself implausible. F inally, while Mrs. Parra and her older son did l ie

to border officials about whether they had previously resided in the United States
and whether they knew the whereabouts of Mrs. Parra’s husband

— who was then

1 On May 25, 2022, this Court severed and dismissed Petitioners David Villasenor Parra and Joram Villasenor Parra from this petition for review. Dkt. No. 43. 2 Mrs . Parra’s argument that the I mmigration J udge lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings because of deficiencies in her Notice to Appear is foreclosed by this Court’s en banc decision in United States v. Bastide

- Hernandez , 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Ci r. 2022) (en banc).3

living illegally in the United States

— these mis representations are explainable by a fear of persecution and a n understandable desire to protect Mrs. Parra’s husband from deportation. The statements d o little to undermine the core of Mrs. Parra’s testimony under the totality of circumstances

. See Alam v. Garland , 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) ( “ [U] nder the REAL ID Act, credibility determinations are
made

— and must be reviewed

— based on the ‘totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors,’ not a single factor.” )

. 2. The a gency’s determination that Mrs. Parra did not establish a nexus between the harm she fears and her membership in her proposed family

- based social group s is also unsupported by substantial evidence. Contrary to the a gency’s

sugges tion, Mrs. Parra never alleged that her son was “ kidnapped and killed other
than for criminal reasons

. ” Instead, she alleged both past persecution and a fear of future persecution on account of her status as a family member who “openly reported and/or inde pendently investigated [those] criminal acts

. ” Mrs. Parra’s testimony that she was repeatedly threatened by suspected cartel members and government officials who urged her to drop her investigative efforts is sufficient to
establish a nexus between the har m she fears and her proposed social group s
. Because the BIA did not reach the question whether Mrs. Parra’s proposed particular social groups were cognizable, we do not address that issue.
3. The agency’s determination that Mrs. Parra failed to meet her burden4

of proof to demonstrate eligibility for relief under CAT was improper . The agency erred by failing to consider Mrs. Parra’s significant country conditions evidence, including newspaper ar ticles, a State Department country report, and signed
declarations from two expert witness es
. See Aguilar

- Ramos v. Holder , 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010) . The agency must reconsider Mrs. Parra’s CAT claim in light of that evidence and the remainder of t his disposition , including the rejection of the agency’s adverse credibility determination

. Id. at 706.
For these reasons , we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

– 18 (2 002) (per curiam).
Petition GRANTED ; REMANDED

.1 Parra Santacruz v. Garland , Case No. 20

- 72819 Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, concurring: I agree with the majority’s conclusion that this case should be remanded for the agency to conform its adverse credibility determination to our recent decision
in Alam v. Garland , 11 F4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (requiring that credibility
determination s be made “based on the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors”) (citation omitted). I also agree that the Immigration Judge had jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings as determined in our recent en banc decision, United States v. Bastide

Hernandez , 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 

# FILED

JAN 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS