Jose Alberto Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney General
717 F.3d 1224
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Perez-Guerrero, a Mexican citizen, bribed a cartel member while working for the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City and later cooperated with U.S. and Mexican authorities.
- He pled guilty to bribery and obstruction of justice in the D.C. District Court and was sentenced to 24 months; he agreed to be removed to Mexico after serving his sentence.
- DHS notified him of removal; he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- The immigration judge and Board denied CAT relief, concluding it was not more likely than not he would be tortured in Mexico and that Mexican officials would not participate in or consent to such torture.
- The Board affirmed, addressing CAT standard and reasoned consideration; the court retained jurisdiction over legal questions but not factual findings under the Real ID Act.
- Disputes over sealing of records arose; the court ultimately ordered sealed only specific confidential portions while preserving public access to others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board's CAT denial is reviewable as a legal question | Perez-Guerrero argues Board misapplied CAT standards. | Perez-Guerrero concedes jurisdictional bar applies to factual findings; argues legal error. | Board committed no legal error; review limited to legal conclusions. |
| Whether the Board gave reasoned consideration to CAT factors | Board failed to consider likelihood of torture and state participation. | Board properly considered all relevant evidence and applied the standard. | Board provided reasoned consideration for likelihood of torture; weight-of-evidence argument foreclosed. |
| Whether removal to Mexico violates due process | State-created danger theory shows due process violation due to reliance on promises and informant status. | No custodial relationship; removal policy is congressionally delegated; state-created danger not applicable. | Removal does not violate due process; state-created danger not applicable in immigration context. |
| Whether portions of the record must remain sealed | Sealing necessary to protect family and plea records. | Balance public access with confidentiality; only sensitive portions sealable. | Seal limited to specific confidential portions; majority opinion kept public where permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.2009) (review of CAT torture likelihood is limited by 1252(a)(2)(C))
- Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517 (11th Cir.2013) (unreviewable fact-findings under Real ID Act; focus on legal questions)
- Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 500 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir.2007) (limits on reviewing whether fact patterns meet legal standard of torture)
- Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 329 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir.2003) (substantive due process limits in non-custodial situations; shock the conscience standard)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.2001) (public access to judicial records; balancing interests when sealing portions)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (common-law right to inspect judicial records; not absolute)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (deference to congressional policy in immigration matters)