Luis Torres-Escalantes v. Attorney General United States, 632 F. App'x 66

Petitioner Luis Torres-Escalantes, a Mexican national, was previously deported in 2010, reentered the U.S., was apprehended in 2013, and faced reinstatement of his prior removal order.
While detained, he applied for withholding of removal (membership in a particular social group: deportees with family in the U.S.) and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging kidnapping, beating, and rape by the Los Zetas gang after his 2010 deportation.
An ICE officer found Petitioner had a reasonable fear and referred the case to an immigration judge (IJ). At the merits hearing the IJ found Petitioner credible; two experts testified about his injuries, PTSD, and country conditions; Petitioner submitted country-condition reports including an expert report by Dr. Boerman on gang power and official corruption.
The IJ denied relief, concluding the Mexican government did not acquiesce to torture and that the harm was driven by criminal motives, not a protected ground; the BIA affirmed. Petitioner petitioned for review.
The Third Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence, vacated the BIA order in part, remanded the CAT claim for reconsideration (finding the agency erred by not addressing government inability to prevent torture), and upheld the denial of withholding of removal (finding either the social group lacked particularity or the harm was ordinary criminal extortion).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Mexican government acquiesced in torture (CAT)	Petitioner: evidence shows government inability/willful blindness to gang violence and police corruption; so acquiescence likely	Government: agency found government efforts to curb abuses, so no acquiescence	Remanded: agency erred by focusing on governmental attempts rather than whether inability to control gangs/officials amounts to acquiescence; BIA must reconsider in light of Pieschacon-Villegas
Whether petitioner qualifies for withholding of removal as a member of a particular social group (deportees with U.S. family)	Petitioner: deportees with family in U.S. face targeted kidnapping and persecution	Government: group lacks required particularity; the harm was motivated by ordinary criminal extortion, not a protected ground	Denied: substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ that group lacked particularity and/or motive was economic extortion, not persecution
Whether criminal gang motives suffice as persecution on account of a protected ground	Petitioner: gang targeted him because he was a deportee with U.S. family	Government: gang acted for ransom/wealth, not a protected ground	Held for government: economic ransom motive is not persecution (Shehu governing)

Sandie v. Att’y Gen., 562 F.3d 246 (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ where both issued decisions)
Balasubramanrim v. I.N.S., 143 F.3d 157 (substantial evidence review standard)
Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (agency decision must be upheld unless contrary evidence compels reversal)
Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (same standard for agency factual findings)
Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (CAT: petitioner must show more likely than not to be tortured)
Silva-Rengifo v. Att’y Gen., 473 F.3d 58 (government acquiescence may be shown by willful blindness)
Pieschacon-Villegas v. Att’y Gen., 671 F.3d 303 (government may acquiesce by inability to control torturers)
Kaita v. Att’y Gen., 522 F.3d 288 (withholding requires clear probability of persecution)
Shehu v. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 652 (mistreatment motivated by desire for money is not persecution)
Khouzam v. Att’y Gen., 549 F.3d 235 (venue statute is non-jurisdictional)
Moreno-Bravo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 253 (venue governed by parties' disposition; transfer not required)