Julio Benedicto v. Merrick Garland, 18-73237

Background

Petitioner Julio Enrique Benedicto, a Dominican native and U.S. lawful permanent resident, has a lengthy criminal history including felony domestic-violence convictions; DHS charged removability based on an aggravated-felony crime of violence.
Immigration Judge (IJ) found Benedicto incompetent to represent himself, appointed a qualified representative (QR) who later withdrew after being assaulted by Benedicto; IJ granted multiple continuances, compelled DHS document production, and personally questioned Benedicto at the merits hearing.
IJ concluded Benedicto was removable as an aggravated felon, found the felony harassment–domestic violence conviction divisible and qualifying as a particularly serious crime, denied withholding of removal and asylum, and denied deferral under the CAT.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ: it found the procedural safeguards adequate, agreed the conviction was an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime, and held Benedicto failed to show he was more likely than not to be tortured by the Dominican government.
On appeal, this Court dismissed unexhausted challenges, held the IJ afforded due process through the implemented safeguards, declined to review discretionary "particularly serious crime" factual reweighing, and found substantial evidence supported denial of CAT relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ violated due process by not adopting additional safeguards or terminating proceedings	Benedicto (through amicus) argued IJ failed to implement sufficient safeguards after incompetency finding and should have terminated proceedings	Government: IJ provided appropriate safeguards (QR appointment, continuances, document production, IJ questioning); termination unwarranted	Held: IJ provided adequate safeguards; due process claim dismissed and termination not required
Whether IJ erred by treating the conviction as a "particularly serious crime" without considering mental illness	Amicus: IJ should have considered mental condition as mitigating under Gomez‑Sanchez when assessing seriousness	Government: No record evidence attributing the crime to mental illness; review of facts is discretionary	Held: Court lacked jurisdiction to reweigh discretionary determination; no cognizable legal error shown
Whether challenges to the "particularly serious crime" finding and counsel effectiveness were exhausted	Amicus: prior counsel was ineffective for not preserving the mental‑illness argument	Government: Claims were not raised to the BIA and are unexhausted; motion to reopen is the remedy	Held: Claims unexhausted and unreviewable; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction on these points
Whether substantial evidence supports denial of CAT deferral (risk of torture and state complicity)	Amicus: country conditions show police/prison neglect and government acquiescence amount to likely torture of Benedicto (given his mental illness and criminal history)	Government: Record shows reforms, prosecution of abusive officers, model prisons and monitoring efforts; no evidence of specific intent by government to torture petitioner	Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ conclusion that petitioner did not show more‑likely‑than‑not torture or state complicity; CAT relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for due process claims)
Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2013) (due process inquiry focuses on whether IJ actions prevented significant testimony)
Morales‑Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (prejudice requirement for due process/exhaustion analysis)
Tamayo‑Tamayo v. Holder, 725 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (plausible alternative outcomes required to show prejudice from procedural defects)
Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 2012) ("particularly serious crime" determinations are discretionary)
Gomez‑Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2018) (mental‑health evidence may be relevant to particularly serious‑crime analysis in certain contexts)
Lemus‑Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing BIA denial of CAT relief)
Garcia‑Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (two‑part CAT analysis: likelihood of torture and state involvement)
Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (government complicity inference required for CAT relief)
Delgado‑Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized country violence insufficient for CAT)