Mariela Plancarte Sauceda v. Merrick Garland, 23 F.4th 824

Background

Mariela Plancarte Sauceda, a licensed nurse from Michoacán, Mexico, was repeatedly kidnapped and forced by cartel members to provide medical care; she and her family were threatened with torture and death.
She testified that local officials (including the mayor and police) facilitated or protected cartel patients at the hospital; country‑condition evidence corroborated widespread law‑enforcement corruption.
Plancarte fled to the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the IJ found her credible but denied asylum as untimely and did not address her proposed particular social group (PSG) “female nurses.”
The BIA acknowledged the IJ’s failure to consider the PSG but rejected “female nurses” as non‑cognizable because the BIA viewed nursing as a mutable occupation (citing Matter of Acosta) and affirmed denial of CAT relief, finding no government involvement or acquiescence.
The Ninth Circuit held venue proper in the Ninth Circuit, concluded the BIA unreasonably rejected the PSG on immutability grounds, found the record compels a finding of government involvement/acquiescence for CAT, granted the petition, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plancarte's Argument	Garland (government)'s Argument	Held
Venue (where petition filed)	Venue is proper in Ninth Circuit because IJ transferred venue to Boise and hearings were conducted with petitioner physically in Boise	Venue should follow the IJ’s court location (Salt Lake City) from which the IJ and DOJ counsel participated by video	Ninth Circuit: venue proper in Ninth Circuit (Boise) because IJ granted change of venue and hearings designated Boise as location
Cognizability of PSG: “female nurses” (immutability)	Nursing skills and license are immutable/central to identity; even if she changed jobs she would remain a nurse and remain targeted	Being a nurse is an occupation that can be changed; analogous to Acosta taxi drivers, so not immutable	Court: BIA unreasonably applied Acosta; “female nurses” may be immutable because professional training/license cannot simply be changed—remanded for further PSG analysis
CAT: government involvement or acquiescence	Credible testimony and corroborating country evidence show police and local officials protected cartel patients and the mayor placed her to treat cartels—establishing acquiescence/involvement	Even accepting testimony, evidence insufficient to meet CAT burden of more‑likely‑than‑not government acquiescence/involvement	Court: substantial evidence compels finding of official involvement/acquiescence; remanded to determine whether likelihood of torture merits CAT relief
Due process (failure to admit evidence)	BIA’s failure to remand for IJ to admit key evidence violated due process	Failure to exhaust administrative remedies; issue not preserved	Court: lack of jurisdiction to review due‑process claim because Plancarte failed to exhaust administrative remedies

Key Cases Cited

Garland v. Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (2021) (clarifies that credibility is distinct from persuasiveness and legal sufficiency)
Yang You Lee v. Lynch, 791 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2015) (venue depends on where IJ completed proceedings)
Diaz‑Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2020) (agency PSG determinations require fact‑specific inquiry; deference under Chevron)
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements for particular social group: immutability, particularity, social distinction)
Castillo v. Barr, 980 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2020) (BIA must consider all highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence)
Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2018) (petitioner testimony and country conditions are relevant to CAT)
Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard for CAT: more likely than not torture on return)
Ornelas‑Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (review BIA decisions that adopt IJ reasoning by consulting the IJ’s opinion as guide)