Opinion ID: 4689051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Protection Under the Convention Against

Text: Torture Galeas Figueroa next challenges the BIA’s denial of his request for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for mandatory CAT withholding, an alien must demonstrate that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2020). As defined by the CAT implementing regulations, torture is “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment.” Id. § 1208.18(a)(2); see Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 151 (3d Cir. 2005) (listing the elements of torture). One of the elements of torture requires that the severe pain or suffering be inflicted “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2020); see also Auguste, 395 F.3d at 151. The BIA determined that Galeas Figueroa failed to prove that element, and on that basis, it denied CAT relief. Galeas Figueroa disputes that ruling and contends that through willful blindness, the Honduran government would acquiesce to his likely torture by the Mara 18 gang. See Silva-Rengifo v. Att’y Gen., 473 F.3d 58, 65 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[A]n alien can satisfy the burden established for CAT relief by producing sufficient evidence that the government in question is willfully blind to such activities.”). In this Circuit, the analysis of governmental acquiescence to torture involves a two-part inquiry. See Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 516 (3d Cir. 2017). The first question is one of fact: How will public officials likely act in response to the harm that the alien fears? The second step involves a legal question: 28 Will the public officials’ likely response amount to acquiescence? Regarding the first inquiry – the government’s likely response to the feared harm – the BIA concluded that public officials in Honduras would likely investigate the threats against Galeas Figueroa. Under the “highly deferential” substantial-evidence standard of review that applies to the agency’s factual findings, Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020), that determination is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Galeas Figueroa disputes the BIA’s conclusion. He relies on the government’s failure to prosecute the gang members for their violent acts against him and his family. And he also cites the country conditions report’s identification of the Mara 18 gang as a dangerous criminal group in Honduras. Consistent with its obligation to consider “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) (2020), the BIA weighed Galeas Figueroa’s evidence. It acknowledged that “the Honduran government was unable to bring the gang members who harmed [Galeas Figueroa’s] family to justice.” BIA Op. 3 (AR5); see also id. at 2 (AR4) (recognizing that “many murders in Honduras go unsolved”). But even accounting for that evidence, the BIA determined that “the Honduran government is actively taking measures to combat gang violence,” such that the Honduran police would likely take a report and open an investigation. Id. at 3 (AR5); see also id. at 2 (AR4) (confirming that “the Honduran government has taken significant steps to combat gang violence and public corruption”). While every predictive 29 judgment is subject to second-guessing, especially when it involves the behavior of foreign governmental actors, the BIA’s conclusion is not one that a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reject. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Therefore, the BIA’s factual assessment of the Honduran government’s likely response to the pain or suffering that Galeas Figueroa may experience in Honduras survives substantial-evidence review. As a legal question, the second acquiescence inquiry – whether the government’s likely response constitutes acquiescence – receives de novo review. See Myrie, 855 F.3d at 515–16. On this issue, Galeas Figueroa argues that the Honduran government would acquiesce through willful blindness to his future harm in Honduras. But a government that investigates reports of private violence is not willfully blind to that violence. See Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 582, 610–12 (3d Cir. 2011) (upholding the BIA’s determination that the Honduran government was not willfully blind to gang violence where the police were investigating five police reports, even though the victim “never saw any progress” (citation omitted)). Nor does the ineffectiveness of the Honduran police in solving the Galeas Figueroa family’s prior reports of crime mean that investigations of future reports of crime would be so unsuccessful as to constitute acquiescence. The delay by the Galeas Figueroa family in reporting a crime along with the incomplete leads they provided made the investigations more difficult. And as the BIA recognized, the Honduran government has since improved its anti-crime efforts. Thus, as a matter of law, the Honduran government’s likely response to future reports of crime – taking a report and commencing an investigation – does not constitute acquiescence. 30 Accordingly, neither prong of the acquiescence inquiry provides a basis to grant Galeas Figueroa’s petition for CAT withholding. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the Honduran government would likely investigate reports that Galeas Figueroa would make to the police. And on this record, that response does not constitute acquiescence.