Jean Ridore v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
696 F.3d 907
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ridore, a Haitian national, is a native and former lawful permanent resident living in the United States since 1973.
- His family includes U.S. citizen father, sister, and brother; he has limited contact with Haiti after crimes and family deaths.
- Between 1991 and 2004 Ridore committed numerous crimes; DHS initiated removal proceedings based on felony theft/burglary and crimes of moral turpitude.
- An IJ on remand granted CAT protection and cancellation of removal, but the BIA later vacated CAT protection and cancellation and remanded.
- Ridore sought review in which the Ninth Circuit found error in BIA’s de novo review of factual findings for CAT and remanded for clear-error review, while confirming proper treatment of cancellation issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA applied the correct standard of review for CAT findings. | Ridore argues BIA engaged in de novo factfinding against 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) and failed to apply clear-error review. | Holder contends BIA can review factual predictions de novo as a mixed question under § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). | BIA committed legal error; remand for CAT review under clear-error standard. |
| Whether BIA properly addressed IJ’s CAT findings in light of current Haiti prison conditions. | Ridore maintains BIA ignored IJ’s evidence and relied on In re J-E- without proper analysis. | HOLDER argues In re J-E- controls and supports BIA’s stance. | BIA failed to give proper deference to IJ’s factual findings; remand required. |
| Whether Haiti’s prison conditions and deportee detention policies constitute torture under CAT for Ridore. | Ridore presented current evidence showing life-threatening detention conditions and lack of family support leading to torture likelihood. | BIA relied on In re J-E- and treated detention as a lawful sanction not amounting to torture. | Remand to reweigh and reconsider CAT relief applying correct standard. |
| Whether the BIA properly weighed positive and negative equities in CAT context and cancellation of removal. | IJ’s factual findings and expert evidence support relief; BIA ignored those distinctions. | BIA balanced equities; no clear error in its approach. | Cancellation of removal remanded alongside CAT reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J-E- , 23 I. & N. Dec. 291 (BIA 2002), 23 I. & N. Dec. 291 (BIA 2002) (CAT standard; detention as lawful sanction vs torture; factual changes since 2000)
- Kaplun v. Attorney Gen. , 602 F.3d 260, 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (separation of factual and legal questions in CAT review)
- Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and BIA's deference to IJ findings)
- Matter of V-K- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 500, 24 I. & N. Dec. 500 (BIA 2008) (BIA view on deference and de novo review for CAT likelihood)
- Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 366 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2004) (asylum context requiring individualized analysis of changed conditions)
- Theagene v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1107, 411 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2005) (need for individualized analysis in asylum CAT determinations)
- Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 523 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence-based approach to CAT determinations)
- Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 364 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (CAT standard and deference principles)
- Afridi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1212, 442 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional questions regarding review of BIA decisions)