Francisco Perez v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 889 F.3d 331

Background

Perez, a Honduran national, sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after DHS initiated removal proceedings following an aggravated-felony conviction in the U.S.
As a youth in Danli, Honduras, MS-13 tried to recruit Perez (2003), gave him ultimatums, and later confronted him again (2010); he escaped both encounters and reported threats and a related murder to police, who did nothing.
Perez submitted testimony and family statements describing persistent gang reach and fear he would be pressured or harmed if returned; country-conditions evidence on gang violence was also submitted.
The IJ found Perez credible but denied CAT relief, emphasizing he had not been tortured previously and could potentially relocate within Honduras; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
Perez appealed to the Seventh Circuit, arguing the agency improperly truncated factual inquiry about near-escapes and asked the wrong relocation question (focusing only on prior individual gang members rather than the gang generally).
The Seventh Circuit granted the petition, holding the Board failed adequately to assess (1) the probative value of narrow escapes from torture and (2) whether Perez could safely and openly relocate in Honduras given MS-13’s reach.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether narrow/near-escapes from gang violence must be treated as strong evidence of past torture for CAT analysis	Perez: near-escapes are highly probative and can show he would more likely than not be tortured if returned	Government: absence of actual past torture undercuts CAT claim; substantiality test not met	Court: Agency erred by truncating inquiry; narrow escapes are strong, particularized evidence and must be fully considered (remand)
Whether agency adequately considered acquiescence/consent of public officials to gang torture	Perez: prior threats, violence, and police inaction indicate state acquiescence	Government: no direct evidence of state involvement; speculative	Court: Agency should evaluate whether past near-escapes, threats, and authorities’ failure to act show acquiescence; agency failed to fully do so (remand)
Whether the Board properly evaluated internal relocation within Honduras	Perez: agency must ask whether he could live openly (not hide resistance) anywhere in Honduras given gang reach	Government: petitioner could avoid particular MS-13 members and relocate	Court: Board asked wrong, too narrow question (focused on same individuals); must consider ability to live openly and safely given gang as a whole (remand)
Sufficiency of IJ/Board factual findings to support denial under CAT	Perez: findings were conclusory and did not analyze key factors (near-escapes, relocation, state acquiescence)	Government: IJ and Board found fear speculative and relocation feasible	Court: Findings insufficient and perfunctory; record requires further factfinding and analysis (remand)

Key Cases Cited

Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 1134 (7th Cir.) (describes CAT "substantial risk" standard)
Perez-Montes v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 849 (7th Cir.) (application of substantiality test under CAT)
Lopez v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 484 (7th Cir.) (burden on petitioner to show likelihood of torture)
Orellana-Arias v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 476 (7th Cir.) (factors IJs must address in CAT adjudications)
Jabateh v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 332 (7th Cir.) (reviewing Board and IJ reasoning; allocation of review)
Velasquez-Banegas v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 258 (7th Cir.) (requirement to assess ability to live openly after relocation)
N.L.A. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425 (7th Cir.) (relocation and open-admission analysis in asylum/withholding contexts)
Sarhan v. Holder, 658 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.) (similar relocation/open-admission principles)
Pieschacon-Villegas v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 671 F.3d 303 (3d Cir.) (consider all evidence about internal relocation)
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir.) (internal relocation analysis and evidentiary consideration)