Juan Ruiz-Colmenares v. Merrick Garland, 25 F.4th 742

Petitioner Juan Ruiz-Colmenares, a Mexican national, illegally reentered the U.S. four times and has multiple aggravated-felony convictions; he was deported in 1998, 2000, and 2001.
During the fourth removal proceedings (initiated 2015) he for the first time claimed fear of return, asserting he had been robbed and assaulted—by police officers—after each prior deportation.
Petitioner’s accounts of the three post-deportation incidents changed across an asylum interview (2015), written declarations (2016–2017), and oral testimony (2017), with omissions and conflicting dates/details and no medical records or corroborating witnesses.
He conceded he was ineligible for withholding of removal under the INA because of particularly serious crime convictions, so he sought only CAT deferral.
The IJ found Petitioner not credible and denied CAT relief (also noting country-condition reports did not show a particularized risk); the BIA affirmed.
On appeal Petitioner argued (1) the agency lacked jurisdiction because the initial charging document listed hearing time/date as “to be determined,” and (2) the agency erred in denying CAT relief. The Ninth Circuit denied review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the agency lacked jurisdiction because the Notice of Referral (charging document) omitted hearing date/time	Ruiz-Colmenares: NTA deficiency (time/date left “to be determined”) deprived agency of jurisdiction, relying on Pereira	Government: Jurisdictional challenge was not raised below and is thus unexhausted; Pereira does not control here	Court: Jurisdictional claim is unexhausted; court lacks jurisdiction to consider it
Whether the agency erred in denying CAT deferral by finding Petitioner not credible and failing to establish more-likely-than-not risk of torture with government acquiescence	Ruiz-Colmenares: He suffered past abuses and faces future torture in Mexico; inconsistencies are minor and could be explained	Government: Adverse credibility determination is supported by material inconsistencies, omissions, lack of corroboration, and country reports do not show a particularized >50% risk of torture	Court: Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding; even if credible, evidence is insufficient to meet CAT’s more-likely-than-not, particularized torture standard; petition denied

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (addressing effect of NTA deficiencies in stop-time rule and NTA requirements)
Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to raise an issue before the BIA generally forfeits appellate review)
Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for CAT denials is substantial evidence)
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining the substantial-evidence review limits appellate relief)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ must provide specific, cogent reasons for adverse credibility findings; overturning such findings requires extraordinary circumstances)
Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2016) (REAL ID Act eliminated presumption of credibility; adverse credibility may be based on inconsistencies and omissions)
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (generalized evidence of country conditions and crime does not satisfy CAT’s particularized, more-likely-than-not standard)