2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-13-2011

Alejandro R. Garcia-Garcia v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4332

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Alejandro R. Garcia-Garcia v. Atty Gen USA" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 887.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/887
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-4332

___________

ALEJANDRO RAFAEL GARCIA-GARCIA,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A041-104-430)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Jesus Clemente

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 13, 2011

Before: BARRY, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 13, 2011)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Alejandro Rafael Garcia-Garcia, a citizen of Mexico, was admitted to the United 

States as a lawful permanent resident in 1986. In 2006, he was convicted of conspiracy 

to distribute marijuana in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

California. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Garcia-Garcia was sentenced to 72 
2

months in prison.

The Government charged Garcia-Garcia with removability for having been 

convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) 

§ 101(a)(43)(B) [8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)] (illicit trafficking in controlled substance), 

see INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)], and for having been 

convicted of a controlled substance offense, see INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) [8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)]. Garcia-Garcia conceded that he was removable and applied for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). In support of his claims, Garcia-Garcia alleged that he will be 

harmed by drug dealers or corrupt policemen who believe that he owes them money.

Garcia-Garcia testified that he was arrested in 2000 and that the police confiscated 

$100,000 worth of drugs that he was smuggling on behalf of a cartel. The cartel blamed 

Garcia-Garcia for the confiscated shipment and demanded that he repay the lost money. 

Because of threats from the drug cartel, Garcia-Garcia jumped bail and went to live in 

Calexico, California. In 2005, a friend called Garcia-Garcia and urged him to travel to 

Tijuana, Mexico. Once there, a group of uniformed masked men with badges and guns 

forced Garcia-Garcia into a van. A police car gave chase, but backed off after one of the 

men in the van “got on the radio and gave some kind of code.” Garcia-Garcia was held 

captive for three days, during which he was questioned about whether he owed anyone 

money, beaten, and choked until he lost consciousness. The kidnapers negotiated with 
3

Garcia-Garcia‟s cousin, who was a law enforcement officer in Tijuana.1 It was agreed 

that Garcia-Garcia would be let go on the condition that he repay $50,000 within two 

weeks. Following his release, Garcia-Garcia sought treatment at a hospital in Mexico for 

broken ribs and bruises. He did not repay the money.

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concluded that Garcia-Garcia‟s conviction rendered 

him ineligible for any relief other than deferral of removal under the CAT.2 See INA 

§§ 208(b)(2)(B)(i) [8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(B)(i)] (regarding eligibility for asylum); 

241(b)(3)(B) [8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)] (regarding eligibility for statutory withholding 

of removal); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(4); 1208.16(d)(2) (regarding eligibility for 

withholding of removal under the CAT). As to that basis for relief, the IJ found that 

Garcia-Garcia lacked credibility because his testimony was not plausible and held that he 

failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that he would be subjected to torture. The 

BIA dismissed Garcia-Garcia‟s appeal. Although the Board noted that Garcia-Garcia had 

provided reasonable explanations for some of the implausibilities identified by the IJ, it 

found no clear error in the adverse credibility finding. Alternatively, the BIA concluded 

 

1 Garcia-Garcia‟s cousin was shot in 2009. While Garcia-Garcia believed that 

there was a “strong possibility” that the shooting was connected to the kidnapping, his 

cousin stated in a declaration that “I do not know who or why this attempt was made 

against my life.”

2 Because Garcia-Garcia did not challenge this determination on appeal to the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), we lack jurisdiction to review it. See INA § 

252(a)(2)(D) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)]; Hoxha v. Holder, 559 F.3d 157, 159-61 (3d Cir.

2009).
4

that the IJ properly determined that it is unlikely that Garcia-Garcia will face torture if 

removed to Mexico. Garcia-Garcia has filed a timely petition for review of the BIA‟s 

decision.

As the Government argues, we generally lack jurisdiction to review a final order 

of removal against a criminal alien, like Garcia-Garcia, who is removable for having 

committed an offense covered in INA § 237(a)(2). We retain jurisdiction, however, to 

review “constitutional claims or questions of law” raised in a petition for review. INA 

§ 242(a)(2)(D) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)]; Papageorgiou v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 356, 358 

(3d Cir. 2005). However, “[o]ur jurisdiction in that respect is „narrowly circumscribed‟ 

in that it is limited to „colorable claims or questions of law.‟” Pareja v. Att‟y Gen., 615 

F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Cospito v. Att‟y Gen., 539 F.3d 166, 170 (3d Cir. 

2008) (per curiam)) (quotation marks and citation omitted in original). A claim is not 

colorable if “it is immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or 

is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). We must therefore determine whether Garcia-Garcia‟s petition raises a 

colorable legal or constitutional question, as distinguished from factual questions over 

which we lack jurisdiction. See Alaka v. Att‟y Gen., 456 F.3d 88, 102 (3d Cir. 2006). 

With respect to CAT claims, the question of the likelihood of torture is a mixed one, 

comprised of a factual component (“what is likely to happen to the petitioner if 
5

removed”) and a legal one (“does what is likely to happen amount to the legal definition 

of torture”). Kaplun v. Att‟y Gen., 602 F.3d 260, 271 (3d Cir. 2010).

Garcia-Garcia presents two legal questions, namely, whether the BIA sufficiently 

reviewed all relevant evidence of torture and whether the BIA erred in concluding that 

the evidence of possible torture was sufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief. In 

assessing whether it is more likely than not that an applicant would be tortured in the 

proposed country of removal, “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture 

shall be considered . . . .” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Garcia-Garcia argues that the IJ “did 

not even address the possibility” that the officers in the marked police car which chased 

the kidnappers were accomplices to the crime. But the IJ did consider Garcia-Garcia‟s

allegation that “the marked police car stopped chasing them because [he] heard 

somebody in the van . . . give some code or some information.” Likewise, the BIA noted 

that Garcia-Garcia “explained that a police car began chasing the vehicle after it ran 

through a red light, but stopped pursuing the van when one of the perpetrators spoke to 

the officer over the radio.” On this record, we conclude that the IJ and the BIA 

sufficiently reviewed the evidence concerning Garcia-Garcia‟s kidnapping, as well as the

other relevant evidence of the conditions in Mexico.

In addition, we conclude that the BIA properly determined that the evidence 

Garcia-Garcia presented about what is likely to happen did not meet the legal definition 

of torture. “Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether 
6

physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining 

. . . information or a confession, punishing . . . for an act, . . . intimidating or coercing, or 

for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). The 

torture must be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence 

of” an official person. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). We agree that the absence of a link 

between the Mexican government and Garcia-Garcia‟s kidnapping precludes the grant of 

CAT relief. To the extent that Garcia-Garcia challenges the conclusion that the Mexican

police did not act in collusion with the criminals who kidnapped him and are not willfully 

blind to the criminals‟ activity, we lack jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.