Go v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9186

Go is a native and citizen of the Philippines who overstayed a non-immigrant visa in 2003 and was charged as a removable alien in November 2003.
Go and his wife claimed they would face a sham kidnapping prosecution in the Philippines due to political influence by the King family in Cebu.
Go admitted involvement in a pre-United States drug-trafficking scheme with King and claimed it funded illegal drugs; two versions of events exist (Go’s alleged kidnapping of King or King’s pretext for charges).
An IJ denied relief (asylum and withholding) based on Go’s drug-trafficking involvement and the view that charges were part of a legitimate prosecution; CAT relief was denied pending remand.
The Board denied asylum and withholding in 2005 but remanded CAT for further proceedings; after remand the Board again denied CAT in 2006 in a divided decision, relying on evidence of unlikely torture and King case notoriety.
Go petitioned for review of the Board’s May 2005 (asylum/withholding) and March 2006 (CAT) decisions; the court concluded jurisdiction over all three claims and proceeded to merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Go’s drug trafficking pre-United States activity bars asylum/withholding	Go argues no political motive; seeks relief notwithstanding drug crime.	Holder contends drug trafficking is a particularly serious, nonpolitical crime presumptively bars relief.	Go barred from asylum/withholding due to drug-trafficking crime.
Whether there is probable cause to believe Go committed the drug offense	Go admitted involvement in drug financing; testimony supports claims.	Record evidence supports Board’s finding of probable cause to believe the offense occurred.	Board’s finding of probable cause sustained; Go denied relief for asylum/withholding.
CAT relief viability given potential torture upon return	Detention conditions and country reports show likelihood of torture upon detention awaiting trial.	Board reasoned that torture is unlikely due to notoriety and official actions; evidence not compelling.	CAT relief denied; substantial evidence supports no likelihood of torture.
Whether the Board’s CAT denial on remand violated due process	Go challenges reliance on certain testimony and the process on remand.	Evidence was properly weighed; due process satisfied; cross-examination and consideration of all evidence allowed.	No due process violation; decision upheld.

McMullen v. INS, 788 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1986) (probable cause standard for 'serious reasons' in eligibility for asylum/withholding)
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence standard; upholding Board determinations)
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (political vs nonpolitical crimes; lack of political objective in serious crimes)
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1999) (substantial evidence review; framework for agency decisions)
Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2005) (consideration of multiple evidence pieces in credibility/weighting)
Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1988) (lack of generalized fear; relevance of status and relations)
Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2001) (weighing totality of evidence; deference to Board on substantial evidence)
Chanco v. INS, 82 F.3d 298 (9th Cir. 1996) (common crimes not refugees; legitimate criminal prosecutions)
In re Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1982) (presumption that drug trafficking is a serious crime)
In re C-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 529 (BIA 1992) (nonpolitical nature of serious crimes; political objective inquiry)
Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2010) (contrasting general country reports with specific case notoriety weight)
Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1988) (reiterated weight given to individual circumstances vs general country data)