Jose Galvan-Avila v. United States, 714 F. App'x 693

Petitioner Jose Luis Galvan-Avila, a Mexican national, seeks review of BIA denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief, and appeals district court orders dismissing his § 2241 habeas petition and denying leave to amend it to a § 2255 petition.
At removal proceedings, Galvan-Avila asserted past persecution and fear of future persecution based on family membership; he also alleged a 1994 attempted kidnapping in Tijuana possibly involving federal officers.
The BIA applied a "one central reason" test to withholding of removal; after that decision this Circuit clarified the proper test is whether a protected ground is "a reason" for persecution.
The IJ denied CAT relief because Galvan-Avila failed to show torture would be inflicted by or with the acquiescence of public officials.
Galvan-Avila attempted to collaterally attack his 1994 deportation in reinstatement/reopening proceedings and later sought to amend a § 2241 petition to a § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel related to the 1994 proceedings.
The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction (REAL ID Act) and denied amendment as futile; the Ninth Circuit granted review in part, remanding the withholding claim, and affirmed other rulings.

Issue	Galvan-Avila's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Standard for withholding of removal	BIA applied too demanding "one central reason" test; application should be judged under the "a reason" standard	BIA's application was proper	Court: Grant in part — remand for BIA to apply the correct "a reason" standard (Barajas-Romero controlling)
CAT relief burden	Past kidnapping suggests risk of torture on return, possibly involving federal officers	Galvan-Avila failed to show torture would be inflicted by or with consent/acquiescence of public officials	Denied — substantial evidence supports CAT denial because petitioner did not prove official involvement/acquiescence
Jurisdiction over § 2241 habeas attacking 1994 deportation	§ 2241 is proper to challenge illegality of the 1994 deportation and related conviction	REAL ID Act bars district court habeas jurisdiction over claims intertwined with removal order	Affirmed — district court lacked jurisdiction because claims are wholly intertwined with the 1994 removal order
Leave to amend § 2241 to § 2255 for ineffective assistance claim	Amendment should be allowed to raise ineffective assistance related to failure to advise about relief	Amendment would be futile; IJ not required to advise of relief unavailable at time; claim foreclosed by precedent	Affirmed — amendment denied as futile under Lopez-Velasquez; ineffective assistance claim fails on merits

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (withholding of removal requires showing a protected ground is "a reason" for persecution)
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (CAT: burden to show torture more likely than not and official involvement or acquiescence)
Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (limitations on collateral attacks to prior removal orders in reinstatement proceedings)
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (REAL ID Act bars district habeas jurisdiction over challenges intertwined with removal orders)
Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for district court denials of leave to amend)
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) (futility is a factor in denial of leave to amend)
United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ not required to advise of relief unavailable at hearing; controls ineffective-assistance claims tied to eligibility changes)
United States v. Walker, 601 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits on supplementing appellate record under Rule 10(e))