Paulo Valdez-Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions
689 F. App'x 506
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Paulo Cesar Valdez-Lopez, a Mexican national, sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in a withholding-only proceeding after reinstated removal.
- He was convicted under Nevada Revised Statutes § 453.337 for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of sale.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied withholding and CAT relief and denied Valdez-Lopez’s motion to recuse the IJ; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal.
- The central legal question was whether his drug-sale conviction constitutes a “particularly serious crime,” rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii).
- The BIA and IJ also assessed whether the Mexican government would acquiesce in his torture for CAT eligibility, and whether the IJ’s refusal to recuse violated due process.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews the BIA’s particularly serious crime determination for abuse of discretion and reviews recusal claims under due process standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction is a "particularly serious crime" | Valdez-Lopez argued his offense should not be classified as particularly serious | Government argued the offense and record support classification as particularly serious | Court: No abuse of discretion; conviction is a particularly serious crime, barring withholding relief |
| Eligibility for withholding of removal | Valdez-Lopez argued he could still meet the withholding standard despite the conviction | Government argued ineligibility due to particularly serious crime finding | Court: Ineligibility affirmed; no need to reach merits of persecution claim |
| CAT relief — government acquiescence | Valdez-Lopez argued he would likely be tortured and that Mexican authorities would acquiesce | Government argued Mexico would not acquiesce and record supports denial | Court: Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; government would not acquiesce |
| Recusal / Due process | Valdez-Lopez argued IJ was biased and should have recused | Government argued no extrajudicial bias or pervasive prejudice shown | Court: No due process violation; recusal denial proper (no extrajudicial source or pervasive bias shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2016) (jurisdictional standard for reviewing reinstated removal orders)
- Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015) (appropriate factors and evidence for particularly serious crime analysis)
- Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards cited for particularly serious crime inquiry)
- Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review of particularly serious crime determinations; standard for CAT review)
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence standard supporting non-acquiescence by foreign government for CAT)
- Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2007) (due process standard for IJ recusal review)
- Litecky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (standard on judicial bias and what constitutes disqualifying prejudice)