Delfina Soto-Soto v. Merrick Garland, 1 F.4th 655

Background

Delfina Soto-Soto (indigenous woman, Michoacán) was arrested in 2012, tortured by Michoacán state police/Anti‑Kidnapping unit until she signed a confession, and threatened with further torture and threats to her daughters if she reported the abuse.
A Mexican trial court later dismissed the charges for lack of evidence (noting procedural defects and lack of interpreter) and Soto‑Soto fled to the United States; she filed a complaint with the Michoacán State Human Rights Commission which was dismissed for lack of contact information.
Mexican prosecutors reopened the investigation, secured witness testimony, and INTERPOL issued a Red Notice; DHS placed Soto‑Soto in removal proceedings after her arrest in the U.S.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Soto‑Soto credible and granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding past torture, likelihood of re‑arrest and re‑torture (including government involvement/acquiescence), inability to relocate within Mexico, and country‑condition evidence showing indigenous women are especially vulnerable.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, reasoning the Mexican judicial system corrected due‑process errors, Soto‑Soto was not harmed while in custody for eight months after reporting torture, and family members in Mexico remained unharmed; the Ninth Circuit held the BIA applied de novo review instead of clearly‑erroneous review and concluded the record compels CAT relief.
Judge Wallace concurred in part (that the BIA applied wrong standard) but dissented from directing a grant of relief, arguing the record does not compel that outcome and the case should ordinarily be remanded for the BIA to reapply the correct standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the BIA apply the correct standard of review to the IJ's factual findings?	BIA nominally invoked "clear error" but in substance reweighed evidence; it should have deferred to IJ.	BIA argued IJ failed to acknowledge Mexican judicial fixes and other facts undermining IJ findings.	Court: BIA applied de novo review (improper); reversed and remanded with instruction to grant CAT deferral.
Did Soto‑Soto meet burden for CAT deferral (more likely than not to be tortured with government involvement/acquiescence if returned)?	Past torture, threats to re‑torture if reported, reissued arrest warrant, country reports about indigenous women establish likelihood.	Government argued reopened investigation and judicial steps mitigate risk and evidence supports re‑prosecution.	Court: Under proper clear‑error review, IJ’s findings not clearly erroneous; record compels conclusion Soto‑Soto met CAT standard.
Did Mexican judicial actions and eight‑month post‑report custody show changed circumstances reducing risk of future torture?	Judicial dismissal did not acknowledge or punish torture; no safeguards or evidence the torturers were held accountable; complaint to human‑rights body was filed only after release.	BIA/Gov: Mexican court conducted new independent investigation, excluded evidence from the coerced confession, and Soto‑Soto was unharmed while in custody post‑report.	Court: Record does not support that due‑process errors were remedied or that custody evidence negates threat; IJ reasonably credited threats and country conditions.
Remedy: Should the Ninth Circuit remand to the BIA or order grant of CAT relief?	Soto‑Soto sought grant of deferral because record compels relief.	Gov/BIA favored remand for BIA to reassess under proper standard.	Court: Granted petition and remanded with instruction to the BIA to grant CAT deferral; one judge would have remanded for reconsideration instead.

Key Cases Cited

Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir.) (describing proper review of IJ factual findings by BIA)
Zumel v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 463 (9th Cir.) (BIA must address key factual findings when applying clear error)
Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909 (9th Cir.) (BIA may not reweigh evidence under clear error standard)
Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.) (deference owed to IJ factfinding on likelihood of future harm)
Xochihua‑Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.) (past torture is ordinarily the principal factor for CAT claims)
Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (U.S.) (appellate courts cannot substitute their interpretation for trial court’s plausible account of evidence)
Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (standard for granting withholding/deferral under CAT)
Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir.) (changed circumstances standard relevant to assessing future persecution/torture)
Ornelas‑Chavez v. Gonzalez, 458 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.) (appellate court should not make factual findings on appeal; remand when agency applied wrong standard)