Hair Rodriguez-Molinero v. Loretta E. Lynch
808 F.3d 1134
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rodriguez-Molinero, a Mexican citizen and long-term U.S. lawful permanent resident, was convicted of federal drug-trafficking crimes and is subject to removal to Mexico as an aggravated felon.
- He previously bought meth from members of the Zetas cartel in Mexico; in 2006 Mexican police tortured him at the direction of a Zetas member known as Jose to test his loyalty.
- He owes the cartel roughly $30,000 for drugs bought on credit, reported Zetas activities to the FBI/DEA after returning to the U.S., and is therefore identified by the cartel as an informant and debtor.
- Expert evidence (credited by the immigration judge) described widespread Zetas brutality, cartel reach into police and local government, and pervasive corruption that undermines protection by Mexican authorities.
- After Rodriguez-Molinero’s return to the U.S., the Zetas kidnapped and murdered his great-uncle while seeking information about him; family members continue to receive threats.
- The immigration judge denied deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed; the Seventh Circuit granted review and remanded for proper consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner faces a substantial risk of torture if removed to Mexico | Rodriguez-Molinero: past torture, debt, informant status, ongoing threats, and cartel reach create substantial grounds to fear torture or death | Government: immigration judge found petitioner failed to show likely torture or government acquiescence; no contrary evidence presented | Court: petitioner showed substantial risk given past torture, threats, and expert country conditions evidence; remand required |
| Whether torture must be inflicted or acquiesced to by the Mexican national government (vs. local officials) | Rodriguez-Molinero: CAT/regulations cover torture by public officials or those acting in official capacity, including police; acquiescence can be by local officials | Government/Board: required broader governmental acquiescence or implicated only federal government | Held: error to require acquiescence by national government; local police participation or acquiescence suffices under CAT/regulation |
| Whether past torture by police satisfies CAT without separate showing of government acquiescence | Rodriguez-Molinero: past torture by police is torture by public officials, so acquiescence showing is unnecessary | Government: argued need to show acquiescence beyond rogue officers or broader pattern | Held: past torture by public officials is sufficient; petitioner need not show acquiescence by higher-level officials |
| Whether petitioner could relocate safely within Mexico | Rodriguez-Molinero: expert testimony and country conditions show no viable internal relocation | Government: no evidence offered to rebut relocation feasibility | Held: absence of government evidence rebutting expert means relocation not shown to be feasible; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (discusses "more likely than not"/substantial grounds standard)
- Milosevic v. INS, 18 F.3d 366 (7th Cir. 1994) (addressing withholding/"more likely than not" standard)
- Yi-Tu Lian v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2004) (commentary on translating evidence into probability under CAT)
- N.L.A. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding local officials' acquiescence can satisfy CAT requirement)
- Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (Zetas-related CAT analysis endorsing acquiescence by state/local officials)
- Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015) (past torture by public officials suffices; no separate higher-level acquiescence required)