Pieschacon-Villegas v. Attorney General of United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24073
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Pieschacon-Villegas, a Colombian citizen, faced removal proceedings after pleading guilty to money laundering in 2003 and cooperating with the FBI from 2003 to 2007.
- He alleges that after FBI cooperation and threats from associates of drug networks, Colombian officials threaten his life if he is removed to Colombia.
- In 2007 he was jailed in Barranquilla; upon release, he alleges encounters with AUC members and that prison officials allowed surveillance and threats consistent with assassination plots.
- The IJ denied CAT deferral, finding that any harm would be extrajudicial and not attributable to the Colombian government’s acquiescence, and that the AUC acts were not at the government’s behest.
- The BIA dismissed his appeal, applying a standard requiring explicit government acquiescence and concluding the government actively opposes his feared groups, and that country-wide abuses do not prove individual risk.
- The Third Circuit granted the petition, remanding for reconsideration consistent with recognizing the possibility of governmental acquiescence and consideration of all relevant evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA applied the correct standard for acquiescence | Pieschacon-Villegas argues BIA erred by adopting a willful blindness standard that is improperly narrow. | The Government contends BIA applied the correct standard for acquiescence under CAT. | Remand required to correct standard/tracking of precedent. |
| Whether BIA ignored evidence of future torture risk | Pieschacon-Villegas contends BIA failed to consider credible threats, FBI cooperation, and country reports showing state complicity or acquiescence. | BIA stated it considered country conditions and declined based on active government opposition and lack of personal risk. | Need to reassess all relevant evidence per 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). |
| Whether government ability to control groups is dispositive | Pieschacon-Villegas relies on Silva-Rengifo and Gomez-Zuluaga to show acquiescence despite inability to fully control groups. | Respondent argues inability to control negates CAT protection; BIA relied on government's opposition as negating acquiescence. | Precedent shows inability to control is not dispositive; willful blindness may still exist. |
| Whether country conditions alone can support likelihood of torture | Past country-conditions reports can corroborate personal risk, supporting more-likely-than-not standard. | Country conditions alone do not prove personal risk without specific grounds. | Country conditions can be probative; BIA must assess them properly. |
| Whether all relevant evidence from IJ was properly considered | BIA failed to reference or engage with credible evidence from IJ on cooperation with FBI, threats, and cautions in country reports. | BIA relied on a balanced view of evidence, citing lack of personally at-risk grounds. | Remand to ensure consideration of all relevant evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silva-Rengifo v. Att'y Gen., 473 F.3d 58 (3d Cir. 2007) (willful blindness standard for acquiescence; evidence may suffice)
- Gomez-Zuluaga v. Att'y Gen., 527 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2008) (government may be willfully blind even amid conflict with groups)
- Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (more-likely-than-not standard for CAT relief)
- Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2003) (country conditions and acquiescence considerations in CAT)
- Kamara v. Att'y Gen., 420 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2005) (evidence of past torture and other relevant evidence considered)
- Lavira v. Att'y Gen., 478 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2007) (IJs must consider all relevant evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3))
- Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (country conditions can corroborate future torture claim)