Oscar Cruz-Quintanilla v. Matthew Whitaker
914 F.3d 884
4th Cir.2019Background
- Oscar Adilio Cruz-Quintanilla, a lawful permanent resident from El Salvador and former MS-13 member with visible gang tattoos, was convicted in Maryland of robbery-related offenses and a handgun offense and placed in removal proceedings.
- He sought withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing he would likely be tortured if returned to El Salvador and that Salvadoran officials would acquiesce (actual knowledge or willful blindness under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7)).
- The immigration judge credited Cruz-Quintanilla’s testimony and recognized risks from gangs and official misconduct but concluded the record did not show it was more likely than not the Salvadoran government would acquiesce in torture, denying CAT relief.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, expressly reviewing the immigration judge’s acquiescence finding only for clear error and citing Saintha v. Mukasey to treat acquiescence as a factual finding.
- Cruz-Quintanilla petitioned for review; court lacked jurisdiction to review purely factual challenges to the agency’s findings (per 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)/(D)) but retained jurisdiction to decide whether the Board applied the correct standard of review.
- The Fourth Circuit held the Board applied the wrong standard: acquiescence determinations are mixed questions of law and fact (like the torture-definition inquiry in Turkson) so the Board must review the immigration judge’s legal application de novo while reviewing underlying factual predictions for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board applied the correct standard of review to the IJ’s finding on government acquiescence under CAT | Cruz-Quintanilla: Board improperly reviewed acquiescence only for clear error and should apply de novo review to the legal application | Government/Board: The Board appropriately treated acquiescence as a factual finding and reviewed for clear error (citing Saintha) | Court: Held Board applied wrong standard; acquiescence is a mixed question (legal application of facts) — Board must review application of law de novo and factual findings for clear error |
| Whether the court may review the merits of Cruz-Quintanilla’s factual challenge to the agency’s acquiescence finding | Cruz-Quintanilla: Agency erred factually; evidence shows likely acquiescence | Government: Merits are factual and fall within §1252(a)(2)(C) jurisdictional bar | Court: Dismissed that portion for lack of jurisdiction (factual challenges to removability decisions barred) |
| (Procedural) Whether the court may hear a due-process claim about a motion to reopen denied by the IJ | Cruz-Quintanilla: Denial violated due process | Government: Claim unexhausted before BIA | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) |
Key Cases Cited
- Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding the torture “likely future mistreatment” inquiry involves mixed questions: factual predictions and legal application)
- Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2008) (treated governmental acquiescence determinations as factual for §1252 jurisdictional purposes)
- Upatcha v. Sessions, 849 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2017) (explaining BIA’s bifurcated review: clear error for factual findings, de novo for application of law to facts)
- Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying bifurcated review to discretionary waiver determinations)
- Myrie v. Attorney General, 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017) (concluding acquiescence assessment is a legal question reviewable de novo by the BIA)
- Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing willful blindness as sufficient to establish government awareness for acquiescence)
- Kaplun v. Attorney General, 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (discussing predictive factual findings in removal contexts)
- Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2006) (describing scope of judicial review limits in §1252 and the narrow exception for questions of law)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (noting congressional intent to preserve Executive discretion over immigration enforcement)