Jose Iruegas-Valdez v. Loretta Lynch
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1152
5th Cir.2017Background
- Iruegas-Valdez is a Mexican national and convicted aggravated felon who repeatedly re-entered the U.S.; an IJ found him statutorily barred from asylum but not per se ineligible for withholding of removal.
- He claimed withholding of removal and CAT protection based on targeted violence by the Zetas cartel after two of his cousins (high‑ranking Zetas) became DEA informants; he and his mother submitted testimony and newspaper articles describing a massacre that killed many relatives and alleged police involvement.
- The IJ found the applicant credible, then later made an adverse credibility finding and denied withholding and CAT relief (citing lack of credibility and other findings about state action).
- The BIA affirmed, relying solely on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and declining to consider the documentary and third‑party testimony independently.
- Iruegas‑Valdez appealed to the Fifth Circuit; he concedes he is an aggravated felon, limiting review of certain issues to legal and constitutional questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review BIA credibility finding | Iruegas argues BIA erred in its credibility ruling | Government argues §1252 bars review of credibility for aggravated felons | Court lacks jurisdiction to review credibility finding except for legal/constitutional claims under §1252(a)(2)(D) |
| Whether BIA should have considered non‑testimony evidence re: particular social group (family of Moreno and Garza) | Even if his testimony were discredited, documentary and third‑party evidence establish persecution on account of family membership | Government says BIA properly relied on adverse credibility and need not reach alternative arguments | Court refused to decide on the merits and remanded because BIA declined to consider the alternative argument—agency must decide first (citing Ventura) |
| CAT: sufficiency of state action analysis | Evidence (police participation, governor’s ties) shows torture is likely and involves state acquiescence/instigation | BIA focused on government countermeasures and concluded no state acquiescence; argued government is fighting cartels | Court held BIA applied incorrect/legal incomplete standard for state action under CAT (must consider various modes of state action under 8 C.F.R. §1208.18 and relevant precedent) and remanded for proper analysis |
| Remedy | Iruegas seeks reversal or grant of relief | Government opposes and defends BIA’s decision | Court VACATED the BIA decision and REMANDED for the BIA to apply appropriate legal standards to the social‑group and CAT questions |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (explains substantial‑evidence review of factual findings)
- Ventura v. INS, 537 U.S. 12 (per curiam) (courts should remand when the agency has not addressed an argument the agency is charged to decide)
- Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997) (review scope limited to BIA orders and substantial‑evidence standard)
- Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76 (5th Cir. 1994) (clarifies "compelling evidence" standard under substantial evidence review)
- Garcia v. Holder, 756 F.3d 885 (5th Cir. 2014) (CAT requires showing both likelihood of torture and sufficient state action or acquiescence)
- Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151 (5th Cir. 2010) (government willful blindness can establish acquiescence under CAT)
- Ontunez‑Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2002) (same; state acquiescence and willful blindness analysis)