Maldonado v. Lynch

Citation786 F.3d 1155
Decision Date18 May 2015
Docket NumberNo. 09–71491.,09–71491.
PartiesRoberto Curinsita MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Haitham Edward Ballout (argued), and Mairead C. Donahey, Law Offices of Haitham E. Ballout, Burlingame, California, for Petitioner.

Andrew C. MacLachlan (argued), Senior Litigation Counsel, and Ilissa M. Gould, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington D.C., for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A017–263–848.

Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, RONALD M. GOULD, RICHARD A. PAEZ, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., SANDRA S. IKUTA, N. RANDY SMITH, MORGAN CHRISTEN, PAUL J. WATFORD, and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge PAEZ

; Dissent by Judge GOULD ; Dissent by Judge M. SMITH.

ORDER AND OPINIONORDER

The Government's Motion to Clarify Decision is granted as follows. On page 5 of the slip opinion, filed on March 27, 2015, the text of footnote 1 is amended as follows: “Because the IJ deemed Maldonado credible, we take his testimony as true for purposes of this opinion. See, e.g., Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2014).”

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

OPINION

Roberto Curinsita Maldonado (Maldonado) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge's (“IJ”) denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Although the IJ found that Maldonado testified credibly that he was tortured by corrupt Mexican police officers after he was deported in 2000, the BIA concluded that Maldonado was not “eligible for deferral of removal under [CAT] because he failed to establish that internal relocation within Mexico was impossible.”

In this proceeding, Maldonado argues that, although he bears the ultimate burden to prove he would be tortured if returned to Mexico, the BIA's ruling on internal relocation is inconsistent with the plain text of the governing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). He also challenges our framework in Lemus–Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir.2008), which the BIA cited in support of its ruling. We acknowledge that our case law on internal relocation under CAT departs from the text of § 1208.16(c)(3). We therefore take this opportunity sitting en banc to clarify our case law and to restore the integrity of § 1208.16(c)(3) in the analysis of a claim for deferral of removal under CAT. In light of the BIA's reliance on our interpretation of § 1208.16(c)(3), we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

While this petition for review was pending, Maldonado was removed to Mexico. This development prompted us to question whether this petition is moot. After considering the government's response to our post-argument inquiry, we conclude, as explained below, that this petition is not moot and proceed to the merits.

I. Background
Factual Basis for Torture Claim1

Maldonado entered the United States in 1966 as a young child. He obtained lawful permanent resident status through his father. As the result of a first degree burglary conviction in 1991, he was stripped of that status in 1997 and ordered deported to Mexico.2

After Maldonado returned to Mexico, he attempted to settle in his family's hometown, Ciudad Hidalgo, in the state of Michoacan. As he passed through inspection at the airport in nearby Morelia, he was detained by what Maldonado described as “Mexican officers” or “Mexican judicial police”3 who were inspecting individuals arriving after removal from the United States. The officers handcuffed him and took him to a police station. They questioned him about tattoos on his body, which they insisted were proof that he had been in a Mexican prison before relocating to Michoacan. As the police officers questioned Maldonado, they beat him, drove screwdrivers into his legs, and burned him with cigarettes, leaving multiple scars. At other points during his detention, the police officers administered shocks to his testicles and placed a bag filled with water over his head such that he believed he was choking. For approximately one month, the police detained Maldonado in a cell at the station without access to a phone. While in custody, they continued to torture him. Eventually, Maldonado was able to contact his father, who paid $15,000 for his release. The police officers did not release Maldonado to his father. Instead, they moved Maldonado by helicopter to a prison and demanded more money for his release.

After three months of captivity and torture, the police informed Maldonado that they would release him only on the condition that he guide other recent deportees into their hands. When Maldonado refused, they stabbed him in the leg and beat him for two days. Fearing for his life, he agreed to participate. Maldonado's role in the criminal enterprise was to approach recent deportees at the airport, promise to assist them, and guide them to hotels that had been chosen by the police. Maldonado would instruct the deportees to wait for him in the hotel. Instead of returning, Maldonado would notify the police, who would then go to the hotel and take the deportees into custody where, according to Maldonado, they likely suffered a fate similar to his own. Maldonado received modest payments for his assistance. After he had saved enough money, Maldonado fled the enterprise and re-entered the United States illegally.

Between 2000 and 2007, Maldonado returned to the United States and was deported three separate times. Each time he returned to Mexico, he was subjected to further torture and abuse in retaliation for leaving the criminal enterprise. When he returned to Ciudad Hidalgo after his removal in 2007, the enterprise had grown in sophistication and was apprehending deportees from airports across Mexico and taking them to prisons and other locations in Michoacan. The corrupt officers had also expanded the enterprise to include kidnapping elected officials' children. Wanting nothing more to do with the criminal enterprise, Maldonado tried to sever his ties. When he attempted to leave the enterprise, however, he suffered further abuse. He suspected that he was being monitored and followed by the enterprise's operatives.

Maldonado approached his only relative in the area, a cousin, for help. His cousin provided Maldonado with a small amount of money, which he used to travel by bus to Sonora, near the United States–Mexico border. In 2007, Maldonado attempted to enter the United States by foot through the Arizona desert, where he was apprehended.

Maldonado asserts that if he is returned to Mexico, the enterprise will kill him because he “know[s] too much of what they were doing.” In particular, Maldonado fears that he would be targeted because he overheard discussions of the enterprise's plans to begin pursuing government officials and their families. Maldonado suspects that photographs of him have been distributed to federal police “all over the place.”

Administrative Proceedings

On July 23, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated Maldonado's June 17, 1997, removal order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.8. Because Maldonado feared that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico, the matter was referred to an asylum officer for a reasonable fear determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(e). An asylum officer interviewed Maldonado, found him credible, and determined that he had a reasonable fear of being tortured by the corrupt “Mexican judicial police” if he were returned to Mexico. Maldonado's matter was next referred to an immigration judge for a hearing on his claim of torture and request for relief under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(e). In pursuit of such relief, Maldonado filed a formal application with the IJ, which he supported with a declaration outlining the above facts and other documentary evidence regarding country conditions and official corruption in Mexico.

In considering Maldonado's request for deferral of removal under CAT, the only relief he sought, the IJ credited Maldonado's testimony. The IJ, however, denied his application because Maldonado “has available to him the opportunity to relocate in the country without fear of harm.” The IJ acknowledged Maldonado's testimony that the enterprise had expanded its scope by entrapping deportees from across Mexico, but reasoned that, because the enterprise had to transport those deportees to its principal base in Michoacan, its authority did not extend nationwide. The IJ determined that relocation was possible because, although police corruption in Mexico was “rampant,” the government was “taking steps to investigate and prosecute those involved in corruption.” The IJ thus suggested that Maldonado could trade evidence of the corruption he witnessed for the Mexican government's protection from the enterprise. Maldonado timely appealed to the BIA.

In affirming the IJ's decision, the BIA “agree[d] with the ... finding that the respondent is not eligible for deferral of removal under [CAT] because he failed to establish that internal relocation within Mexico was impossible.” The BIA further explained that Maldonado “did not show that the influence of the corrupt police officers in Morelia extended country wide.” According to the BIA, Maldonado's evidence that the enterprise was run by federal officers, and not city or state officers, was “speculative and unpersuasive.” It reasoned that “even if corrupt federal officers were involved, the respondent has not shown that they could locate him in every area of Mexico.” The BIA relied, in part, on documentary evidence that the Mexican government was prosecuting police corruption as further evidence that Maldonado could safely relocate. Thus,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
140 cases
  • Herguan Univ. v. Enforcement, Case No. 16-CV-06656-LHK.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • June 28, 2017
    ...provision all consistently interpret § 214.4(a)(2)(vi) as applying to a Designated Official's past conduct. Cf. Maldonado v. Lynch , 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding in the context of individual immigration status appeals that the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretations of......
  • Molina v. Garland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 13, 2022
    ...tortured, "all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered." § 1208.16(c)(3) ; Maldonado v. Lynch , 786 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Just as the BIA legally erred in rejecting Flores Molina's well-founded fear of future persecution by failing to ......
  • Singh v. Garland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 14, 2022
    ...demonstrates past persecution, the burden does not shift to the government in the analysis of a CAT claim. See Maldonado v. Lynch , 786 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 2015) ("The regulations governing CAT deferral, unlike the asylum regulation, do not call for any burden shifting."). Here, the I......
  • Singh v. Garland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 14, 2022
    ... ... persecution, the burden does not shift to the government in ... the analysis of a CAT claim. See Moldanado v. Lynch , ... 786 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 2015) ("The regulations ... governing CAT deferral, unlike the asylum regulation, do not ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Convention Against Torture and Non-refoulement in U.s. Courts
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 35-3, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...orientation, whether perceived or actual, certainly rises to the level of torture for CAT purposes.”). 93. Compare Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that alien seeking deferral of removal under CAT is not required to prove that internal relocation was impossible) (o......
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...disentitlement doctrine does not apply to defendant who surrendered to foreign authorities but was not extradited); Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2015) (appeal not dismissed because fugitive disentitlement doctrine inapplicable to undocumented immigrant who complied with......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT