Martin Mendoza-Sanchez v. Loretta Lynch
808 F.3d 1182
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Mendoza-Sanchez, a Mexican national and former lawful permanent resident, was convicted in Indiana (2010) of cocaine distribution and placed in removal proceedings after release from prison.
- While incarcerated he was attacked by a fellow inmate and alleged La Linea cartel member (“Pelon”), who warned the petitioner the cartel believed he had snitched and would kill him if he returned to Mexico.
- Petitioner presented testimony and State Department reports showing La Linea’s nationwide reach and widespread corruption and collusion by Mexican police with drug cartels, including impunity for abuses.
- The immigration judge found Mendoza-Sanchez credible and concluded he likely faced a risk of death if returned, but denied CAT deferral; the BIA affirmed, finding insufficient evidence that Mexican public officials would acquiesce or be willfully blind to his killing.
- The government moved for remand to the BIA for further consideration; the Seventh Circuit granted the remand to allow the Board to reconsider its acquiescence standard and approach to CAT deferral claims to Mexico.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner faces torture/death on return such that CAT deferral is required | Mendoza-Sanchez: La Linea has threatened him and will kill him if returned; police routinely collude with cartels | DHS: Record lacked sufficient evidence that public officials would acquiesce or be willfully blind | Circuit found petitioner presented strong evidence but remanded for BIA to reconsider acquiescence analysis |
| Whether acquiescence requires national government complicity rather than local police involvement | Mendoza-Sanchez: Local police participation/acquiescence suffices under 8 C.F.R. §1208.18 | DHS/BIA: Insufficient showing that public officials would acquiesce | Court: Acquiescence need not be by national government; local police as public officials can satisfy requirement |
| Whether police labeled as “rogue” defeat a claim of governmental acquiescence | Mendoza-Sanchez: Even if officers are corrupt/rogue, their conduct and pattern supports acquiescence | DHS: Alleged misconduct may be isolated rogue acts, not a pattern of acquiescence | Court: Rogue characterization irrelevant; petitioner need not prove government-wide complicity |
| Whether evidence of Mexican efforts to control cartels negates risk of torture | DHS: Government efforts suggest lower risk of harm | Mendoza-Sanchez: Success—not effort—matters; evidence shows impunity and ineffective protection | Court: Success of protective efforts governs; record lacked evidence government can protect him; remand ordered for fuller BIA analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- N.L.A. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2014) (discusses standards for CAT/acquiescence analysis)
- Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (addresses government complicity and acquiescence by public officials under CAT)
- Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejects labeling abusive public officials as merely rogue where evidence shows torture by police)