German Juarez Rodas v. Merrick Garland, 20-73126

Juarez Rodas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, has been removed from the U.S. multiple times and entered without inspection.
In his most recent proceeding he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, alleging death threats in Guatemala tied to his prior U.S. stay.
An asylum officer found him credible but concluded he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and referred the case to an immigration judge on July 17, 2020.
Department of Homeland Security regulations require immigration-judge review within 10 days absent exceptional circumstances; the IJ did not hold a hearing until October 15, 2020 after repeated quarantine-related delays.
Juarez Rodas argued the delay violated due process and that he qualified for CAT protection; the IJ denied relief, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-referral delay violated due process	Delay (three months) deprived Juarez Rodas of a timely review and impaired his memory of the asylum interview	Delays were caused by COVID-19 exceptional circumstances and, in any event, petitioner suffered no prejudice	No due-process violation; pandemic justified delays and petitioner failed to show prejudice
Whether substantial evidence supports denial of CAT reasonable-fear finding	Petitioner argued threats and ineffective local investigation establish a reasonable likelihood of torture on return	Government argued threats came from private actors, petitioner reported to police, and there was no evidence of government consent or acquiescence	Substantial evidence supports IJ: petitioner failed to show torture would occur with consent or acquiescence of public officials; CAT relief denied

Zuniga v. Barr, 946 F.3d 464 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for due-process challenge)
Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (prejudice required for procedural-due-process relief)
Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice element for due-process claims)
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (prejudice defined as affecting outcome)
Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2016) (substantial-evidence review of reasonable-fear determinations)
Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir.) (10% likelihood standard and government-acquiescence requirement for CAT)
Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.) (government willful blindness vs. general ineffectiveness for acquiescence under CAT)