NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
2 

from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and 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). We grant the petition and remand.

2

1. The agency’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 investigated the 

case herself. The inconsistencies highlighted by the agency are either trivial in light 

of other evidence, adequately explained by Mrs. Parra, or not inconsistent at all. 

The agency’s determination that certain parts of Mrs. Parra’s testimony were

implausible is itself implausible. Finally, while Mrs. Parra and her older son did lie

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 Immigration Judge 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 Cir. 2022) (en banc). 
3 

living illegally in the United States—these misrepresentations are explainable by a

fear of persecution and an understandable desire to protect Mrs. Parra’s husband 

from deportation. The statements do 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 agency’s determination that Mrs. Parra did not establish a nexus 

between the harm she fears and her membership in her proposed family-based 

social groups is also unsupported by substantial evidence. Contrary to the agency’s 

suggestion, 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 independently 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 harm she fears and her proposed social groups. 

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 burden 
4 

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 articles, a State Department country report, and signed 

declarations from two expert witnesses. 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 this 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 (2002) 

(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 

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

FILED

JAN 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS