Opinion ID: 899903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Real ID Act Limits Our Jurisdiction.

Text: We have jurisdiction to review the legal conclusions, but not the factual findings, of the Board. The Real ID Act of 2005 provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) [of Title 8],” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), except to the extent that the petition for review raises “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). One criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) is the commission of a “crime involving moral turpitude.” Id. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Perez-Guerrero concedes that he is removable by reason of having committed a crime involving moral 12 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 13 of 31 turpitude and that the jurisdictional bar of section 1252(a)(2)(C) applies to his petition. We lack jurisdiction to review the factual findings that Perez-Guerrero is unlikely to endure severe pain or suffering in Mexico and Mexican officials are unlikely to inflict, instigate, or consent to any pain or suffering that Perez-Guerrero might endure. See Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1280–81 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the determination that the petitioner failed to prove “that it was more likely than not that he would suffer torture upon return to Jamaica” is a finding of fact that courts lack jurisdiction to review when the jurisdictional bar of section 1252(a)(2)(C) is in effect). But we retain jurisdiction to review PerezGuerrero’s petition “in so far as he challenges the application of an undisputed fact pattern to a legal standard.” Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 500 F.3d 1315, 1322 (11th Cir. 2007). For example, we have jurisdiction to review the legal questions “[w]hether a particular fact pattern amounts to [the legal definition of] ‘torture,’” id., and whether the Board “failed to give reasoned consideration to [PerezGuerrero’s] claims,” id. at 1326. We also have jurisdiction to review PerezGuerrero’s constitutional claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Before oral argument, Perez-Guerrero submitted a letter to this Court suggesting for the first time that the jurisdictional bar of section 1252(a)(2)(C) does not apply to his petition. Perez-Guerrero argued that his petition for deferral of removal under the Convention is not a “final order” within the meaning of 13 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 14 of 31 section 1252(a)(2)(C) because he is not removable “by reason of” his criminal conviction. But Perez-Guerrero had already conceded in his response to the motion to dismiss of the Attorney General that section 1252(a)(2)(C) applied to his petition, and he conceded that point again at oral argument. And we have already held that the finding of the Board that a petitioner seeking deferral of removal under the Convention failed to meet his burden of establishing that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured is an unreviewable fact finding under section 1252(a)(2)(C). See Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 532–33 (11th Cir. 2013); Singh, 561 F.3d at 1280–81. “Under our prior precedent rule, a panel cannot overrule a prior one’s holding even [if] convinced it is wrong.” United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 1998) (en banc). B. The Board Committed No Error of Law When It Denied Perez-Guerrero’s Application for Relief Under the Convention. Perez-Guerrero argues that the Board committed an error of law when it denied his application for relief under the Convention, but this argument fails. The Board held that Perez-Guerrero failed to satisfy both parts of the test for whether an alien is entitled to relief under the Convention: the Board found that PerezGuerrero is unlikely to endure severe pain or suffering in Mexico and that officials are unlikely to inflict, instigate, or consent to any pain or suffering that PerezGuerrero might endure in Mexico. Perez-Guerrero argues that the Board failed to 14 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 15 of 31 give reasoned consideration to both parts of that test. We conclude that the Board gave reasoned consideration to Perez-Guerrero’s argument that he was likely to endure severe pain or suffering in Mexico, and we dismiss Perez-Guerrero’s petition on that ground. We need not reach Perez-Guerrero’s argument that the Board failed to give reasoned consideration to whether Mexican officials might participate in his suffering. An alien is entitled to relief under the Convention if the alien can prove “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. § 208.16(c)(2). The regulations that implement the Convention define “torture” as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person . . . when such pain or suffering is 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.” Id. § 208.18(a)(1). The regulations also state that torture “is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Id. § 208.18(a)(2). The alien bears the burden to prove that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in the country of removal. Id. § 208.16(c)(2). The alien must prove both that he is more likely than not to endure “severe pain or suffering” and that it is more likely than not that a “public official or other person acting in an official 15 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 16 of 31 capacity” will inflict, instigate, or acquiesce in his severe pain or suffering. See id. §§ 208.16(c)(2), 208.18(a)(1); Jean-Pierre, 500 F.3d at 1323. The requirement that the Board give “reasoned consideration” to a petition derives from the regulation that, “[i]n 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. § 208.16(c)(3). The evidence that the immigration judge and the Board must consider includes “(i) Evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant; (ii) Evidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured; (iii) Evidence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal, where applicable; and (iv) Other relevant information regarding conditions in the country of removal.” Id. To determine whether the Board gave reasoned consideration to a petition, we inquire only whether the Board “consider[ed] the issues raised and announce[d] [its] decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that [it] ha[s] heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Cole, 712 F.3d at 534 (quoting Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although the Board must consider all of the relevant evidence, the Board “need not address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented.” Id. (quoting Carrizo, 652 F.3d 16 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 17 of 31 at 1332 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Our limited review of whether the Board gave reasoned consideration to a petition does not amount to a review for whether sufficient evidence supports the decision of the Board, and we lack jurisdiction to review petitions that “contest the weight and significance given [by the Board] to various pieces of evidence.” Id. The Board gave reasoned consideration to the question whether PerezGuerrero is likely to suffer severe pain or suffering in Mexico because the Board “consider[ed] the issues raised and announce[d] [its] decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that [it] ha[s] heard and thought and not merely reacted.” See id. The Board applied the correct legal standard and explained that Perez-Guerrero must “establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). The Board considered all of the evidence relevant to PerezGuerrero’s argument that he would be tortured or killed in Mexico. The Board acknowledged that the country report by the State Department supported PerezGuerrero’s argument that torture occurs in Mexico, that testimony established that Perez-Guerrero’s family had received threats in Mexico, and that Dr. Bagley had testified that he believes Perez-Guerrero would be killed if he returned to Mexico. But the Board also explained that Perez-Guerrero has not received any threats and that the record did not contain evidence of any specific threats that were directed at 17 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 18 of 31 his family. The Board acknowledged Perez-Guerrero “will face some danger in Mexico,” but it nonetheless “agree[d] with the Immigration Judge that [Perez- Guerrero] has not shown it is more likely than not that he would be tortured or killed.” Perez-Guerrero argues that the Board could not conclude both that he faces danger and that he is unlikely to suffer severe pain or death, but we disagree. The Board reasonably found that Perez-Guerrero faces some danger, but that this risk of danger is not so great that he is likely to be tortured or killed. That unreviewable factual determination did not amount to an error of law. Perez-Guerrero argues that the record “contains ample evidence of widespread and growing human rights abuses” in Mexico and that the Board conducted “an incomplete examination of the record,” but the decision of the Board makes clear that it considered all of the relevant evidence. The Board mentioned that the country report suggests that torture occurs in Mexico, that Dr. Bagley testified that Perez-Guerrero would be killed in Mexico, and that the testimony evidence suggests that some of Perez-Guerrero’s family members received threats. But the Board found that, notwithstanding this evidence, PerezGuerrero failed to prove that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in Mexico. To the extent that Perez-Guerrero contests the weight and significance 18 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 19 of 31 that the Board gave to the evidence, we lack jurisdiction to consider this argument. See Cole, 712 F.3d at 534; Singh, 561 F.3d at 1281. Because the Board gave reasoned consideration to Perez-Guerrero’s argument that he is likely to be tortured or killed, we need not address his alternative argument. That is, we need not consider Perez-Guerrero’s argument that the Board failed to give reasoned consideration to his argument that Mexican officials would consent to or acquiesce in his torture. C. Perez-Guerrero’s Removal Does Not Violate His Right to Due Process. Perez-Guerrero argues that, even if he is not entitled to relief under the Convention, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits his removal to Mexico. The Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. Perez-Guerrero argues that, if the United States removes him to Mexico, the United States would fail to protect him from a danger that it created when it solicited his assistance as an informant against corrupt Mexican officials and failed to keep his identity confidential. Perez-Guerrero argues that he enjoys a substantive due process right to be free from a “state-created danger.” Cf. DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 201–02, 109 S. Ct. 998, 1006 (1989). 19 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 20 of 31 We reject Perez-Guerrero’s argument. We have explained that “only custodial relationships automatically give rise to a governmental duty, under substantive due process, to protect persons from harm by third parties.” Doe v. Braddy, 673 F.3d 1313, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012). “[I]f the plaintiff alleging the rights violation is in no custodial relationship with the state, then state officials can violate the plaintiff’s substantive due process rights only when the officials cause harm by engaging in conduct that is ‘arbitrary, or consci[ence] shocking, in a constitutional sense.’” Id. (quoting White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253, 1259 (11th Cir. 1999)). We have explained that “even intentional wrongs seldom violate the Due Process Clause” and that “[w]e must take seriously the Supreme Court’s caution against expanding the concept of substantive due process.” Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1304–05 (11th Cir. 2003). We need not decide whether removable aliens have substantive due process rights in relation to being removed from the country because, assuming without deciding that removable aliens have such rights and the state-created danger doctrine applies in the context of removal proceedings, Perez-Guerrero has failed to establish that the conduct of the United States shocks the conscience. See Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845–46, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1716–17 (1998); Waddell, 329 F.3d at 1305–06. 20 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 21 of 31 Perez-Guerrero has presented no evidence that the federal officials who made promises to Perez-Guerrero regarding the confidentiality of his identity and not returning him to Mexico knew those promises would not be kept at the time they made them. See Waddell, 329 F.3d at 1305 (stating the governmental actor’s conduct must be conscience-shocking “at the time the government actor made the decision” (emphasis omitted)). Nor has Perez-Guerrero established that the United States revealed his identity to the press. Consequently, we cannot say the agents’ decision to make those promises to Perez-Guerrero shocks the conscience. As to the decision to remove Perez-Guerrero after those promises went unfulfilled, by the time the United States sought to remove Perez-Guerrero, he had entered a plea agreement in the criminal case for which he received consideration on his sentence. Based on the plea agreement, he not only was aware that the United States would seek to remove him, but he agreed to a stipulated order of removal. The plea agreement provided that Perez-Guerrero could pursue various avenues of relief from removal based on “a well-founded fear that [removal to Mexico] will create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to [PerezGuerrero] on account of [his] cooperation with law enforcement officials.” When the United States sought to remove Perez-Guerrero, federal officials had agreed Perez-Guerrero could pursue those forms of relief set out by Congress and, in accordance with due process, based on a substantial risk to Perez21 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 22 of 31 Guerrero’s safety. But the Board found Perez-Guerrero did not meet his burden of showing it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to Mexico. In this circumstance, it cannot be said that federal officials acted with deliberate indifference to an extremely great risk of serious injury to PerezGuerrero by returning him to Mexico. See id. at 1306 (stating that, in a noncustodial situation, the governmental official must act “at the very least” with “deliberate indifference to an extremely great risk of serious injury”). Accordingly, Perez-Guerrero’s removal does not violate a right to substantive due process. D. Only Portions of the Record Must Remain Sealed. Perez-Guerrero had initially requested that we seal the entire record in this matter, and before oral argument, this Court granted that motion in a single-judge order. After oral argument, we requested that the parties submit letter briefs to identify which portions of the record should remain under seal. Perez-Guerrero now asks that our opinion conceal his identity and that of his family and counsel, and that we seal, at a minimum, the records of his guilty plea, his I-589 application for asylum and for withholding of removal, and the affidavits that he and his wife submitted to the immigration judge. We vacate the order that sealed the entire record, and we direct the Clerk to seal only portions of the record. We decline to conceal Perez-Guerrero’s identity 22 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 23 of 31 because his name has unfortunately already been released in news articles, and we decline to conceal the identity of his counsel. We have not mentioned the name of his wife or child in this opinion. And we direct the Clerk to seal the records of Perez-Guerrero’s guilty plea and those portions of the record that contain confidential information about Perez-Guerrero’s family. We have discretion to determine which portions of the record should be placed under seal, but our discretion is guided by the presumption of public access to judicial documents. “What transpires in the court room is public property,” Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374, 67 S. Ct. 1249, 1254 (1947), and both judicial proceedings and judicial records are presumptively available to the public, Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). As Judge Easterbrook has explained, “Judges deliberate in private but issue public decisions after public arguments based on public records. . . . Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification.” Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006). The right of the public to access judicial records is grounded in the commonlaw right of access. The Supreme Court has explained that there exists “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents,” but that this common-law “right to inspect and copy judicial 23 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 24 of 31 records is not absolute.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 598, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 1312 (1978) (internal footnote omitted). Courts have discretion to determine which portions of the record, if any, should remain under seal, and this discretion is “to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 599, 98 S. Ct. at 1312–13. To determine the scope of the common-law right of access, which applies in both criminal and civil proceedings, we “traditionally distinguish between those items which may properly be considered public or judicial records and those that may not; the media and public presumptively have access to the former, but not to the latter.” Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1311. We have explained that, at least in the context of civil proceedings, the decision to seal the entire record of the case— including the pleadings, docket entries, orders, affidavits, and hearing transcripts— must be “necessitated by a compelling governmental interest [ ] and [be] narrowly tailored to that interest.” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985)). When a party seeks to seal only particular documents within the record, our task is only “to balance the competing interests of the parties.” Id. at 1312. “Our case law lists several relevant factors to consider, including ‘whether the records are sought for such illegitimate purposes as to promote public scandal or gain unfair commercial advantage, [and] whether access is likely to promote public understanding of historically significant events.’” 24 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 25 of 31 F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983)). The contours of this commonlaw right have been explored primarily in the context of criminal and civil matters, but these principles, coupled with the presumption that judicial records should be available to the public, govern our decision in this immigration case too. We decline to conceal the identity of Perez-Guerrero or his counsel. The Board made a finding of fact that Perez-Guerrero will face some danger in Mexico, and we have stated in this opinion only the facts necessary to our decision and have declined to provide the names of Perez-Guerrero’s family members. But a decision to omit Perez-Guerrero’s name from this opinion would do little to protect his safety. Perez-Guerrero concedes that his name, photograph, and identity as an informant have been widely reported in the media. The underlying facts of PerezGuerrero’s arrest have been reported too, along with the results of Operation Cleanup. A decision to omit Perez-Guerrero’s name from this opinion would also have little practical effect because his name appears throughout the record, including in the briefs, and because his name and the facts of this case were discussed at an oral argument open to the public. Perez-Guerrero has also not made any showing that his lawyers face retaliation for defending him, and their identities are also revealed in documents throughout the record. 25 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 26 of 31 We grant Perez-Guerrero’s request to seal the records of his guilty plea before the district court for the District of Columbia. That court placed the records of Perez-Guerrero’s plea under seal and granted Perez-Guerrero’s request to unseal portions of that record on the condition that they be used for Perez-Guerrero’s immigration proceedings only and be resealed upon completion of those proceedings. We decline to vitiate that ruling by unsealing those records. We also grant Perez-Guerrero’s request to seal his I-589 application, which contains sensitive information about his family members. We will also seal those portions of Perez-Guerrero’s affidavit that mention his family and we seal the entire affidavit of his wife. Perez-Guerrero requests that we seal his entire affidavit, but that request is overbroad because most of the information in that affidavit does not contain sensitive information about Perez-Guerrero’s family and contains information that is repeated elsewhere in the record, including in the comprehensive decision of the immigration judge. We direct the Clerk to seal pages 16, 20, 22, 31–32, 192–196, 251–257, 279–281, 294, 299, 301–304, 444–686, 747–758, 761, 763, 766, 805–806, 813– 815, 844–853, 1030–1044, 1085, 1411–1420, 1443–1452, 1503–1536, 1550, 1555, 1576, and 1616–1627 of the administrative record and to unseal the balance of the record. The appellate briefs before this Court should also be unsealed. This order 26 Case: 12-10261 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 27 of 31 concerns only the record before this Court and does not affect the confidentiality with which the Board treats immigration records. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6.