Fredy Sandoval-Lemus v. Jefferson Sessions, 709 F. App'x 437

Sandoval-Lemus, a Salvadoran national, was convicted of attempted lewd act on a child under 14 and contacting a child with intent to commit a specific crime based on a single sting incident.
The IJ found Sandoval removable and concluded his convictions were a particularly serious crime, rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal; the BIA adopted and independently reviewed that decision.
A Pre-Plea Report (prepared by probation) summarized a police report describing electronic communications with an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old and statements attributed to Sandoval at arrest.
Sandoval challenged the agency’s use of the Pre-Plea Report in the particularly serious crime analysis and sought CAT protection, alleging risk of torture if returned to El Salvador.
The Ninth Circuit’s review was limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) to legal and constitutional issues related to the agency’s denial of relief; factual findings about the aggravated felony and particularly serious-crime determination were not reviewable.
The BIA denied CAT relief, finding Sandoval failed to show it was more likely than not he would be tortured on return; the court found substantial evidence supported that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the agency impermissibly relied on a Pre-Plea Report/police report in finding Sandoval’s crime particularly serious	Sandoval: the agency improperly relied on the Pre‑Plea Report’s hearsay description of the offense and his statements	Government/BIA: Pre‑Plea Report was probative and fundamentally fair; agency may consider reliable information outside the record of conviction	Court: Admission met due process; hearsay and police reports are admissible in immigration proceedings and the agency’s use was lawful
Whether substantial evidence supports denial of CAT deferral (risk of torture)	Sandoval: country conditions and family-targeted attacks show likelihood of torture upon return	Government/BIA: evidence does not show government acquiescence or a likelihood Sandoval would be targeted; family members have remained safe	Court: Substantial evidence supports BIA; petitioner failed to prove more likely than not he would be tortured

Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444 (9th Cir.) (limits judicial review of factual findings where alien removable for aggravated felony)
Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir.) (due process requires evidence be probative and admission fundamentally fair in immigration proceedings)
Anaya‑Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 (9th Cir.) (deference to BIA interpretation allowing consideration of reliable information beyond conviction record)
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.) (police reports are admissible hearsay in immigration proceedings)
Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir.) (applicant bears burden to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured)
Santos‑Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir.) (family members remaining safely in country supports finding of low risk of future persecution/torture)