Erick Villalta v. Merrick Garland, 18-71208

Petitioner Erick Villalta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was convicted under California Penal Code § 237.5 and sought withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied both forms of relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Villalta petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit.
The IJ applied the Matter of Frentescu standard as modified by subsequent Ninth Circuit decisions (considering the nature of the conviction, underlying facts, and sentence) to find Villalta committed a "particularly serious crime."
The IJ did not mention Villalta’s release on bond from DHS custody; the court held that fact is not required under Frentescu and the IJ did not abuse discretion by omitting it.
For the CAT claim, the agency found Villalta failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured with government acquiescence: he had no proven past torture, no threats or harm in the 15+ years since leaving El Salvador, did not report past mistreatment to Salvadoran authorities, and the record showed steps in El Salvador to reduce police corruption.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, reviewing the "particularly serious crime" determination for abuse of discretion and the CAT denial for substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Villalta's conviction is a "particularly serious crime" making him ineligible for withholding of removal	Villalta argued the conviction (and facts) did not rise to the level of a particularly serious crime; noted he was released on bond from DHS custody	Government and BIA argued the conviction, underlying conduct, and sentence support a particularly serious-crime finding; bond status is not a required factor	BIA/IJ did not abuse discretion; correct legal standard applied; omission of bond status was proper and Ninth Circuit will not reweigh evidence
Whether Villalta showed he is more likely than not to be tortured with government acquiescence (CAT)	Villalta pointed to past mistreatment and country conditions to argue future torture is likely	Government argued no past torture shown, no threats in 15+ years, incidents were not reported to authorities, and evidence El Salvador is addressing police corruption	Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; record does not compel a contrary conclusion

Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard for reviewing whether BIA applied correct legal standard and relied on appropriate factors in particularly serious-crime determinations)
Duran‑Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2019) (substantial-evidence review of CAT determinations)
Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2020) (scope of review when BIA conducts de novo review and adopts IJ reasoning)
Anaya‑Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining factors IJs must consider for particularly serious-crime determinations)
Avendano‑Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015) (court lacks jurisdiction to reweigh evidence the IJ already analyzed)
Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) (evaluating evidence of government complicity for CAT claims)
Andrade‑Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2016) (reversals of CAT denials occurred where agency failed to account for significant evidence of government complicity)
Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (BIA discussion can preserve jurisdiction for review)
Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2004) (exercise of discretion to review issues fully briefed despite government omission)