Rafael Herrera-Garcia v. William P. Barr, 918 F.3d 558

Herrera-Garcia, a native of El Salvador, entered the U.S. illegally in 1990 and has lived here ~27 years; DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2016 based on prior criminal conviction and unlawful presence.
He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming past encounters with guerrillas as a child and fear of present-day gang violence and corrupt authorities in El Salvador.
Testimony: childhood stops by guerrillas (no guns seen), one friend allegedly kidnapped; he fled to U.S. fearing both guerrillas and military. Parents testified about gang threats and concern gangs might target him because of an American accent.
The immigration judge (IJ) found him removable and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, concluding (1) no past torture rising to severe pain or suffering, (2) future-torture risk too speculative and generalized, and (3) insufficient evidence government would inflict or acquiesce in torture.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted and affirmed the IJ. Herrera-Garcia petitioned for review and separately moved for BIA reconsideration alleging Pereira v. Sessions changed jurisdictional rules; the BIA denied the motion as untimely.

Issue	Herrera-Garcia's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
CAT protection: likelihood of future torture	He will likely be tortured by gangs or corrupt officials if returned; accent and country conditions make him a likely target	Evidence shows only generalized violence; petitioner not specifically targeted and lacks past torture evidence	Denied — petitioner failed to show more likely than not he would be tortured or specifically targeted
Government infliction/acquiescence	El Salvadoran authorities effectively condone gang violence or are corrupt, so government would acquiesce	Government has taken extraordinary measures against gangs; no evidence govt would be aware and breach duty to prevent torture	Denied — petitioner did not prove government would inflict or acquiesce
Evidence of past torture	Childhood encounters with guerrillas amount to past persecution/torture supporting CAT risk	Encounters did not involve severe pain/suffering required for "torture" under CAT	Denied — past events not severe enough to establish past torture
Timeliness of BIA motion to reconsider	Pereira requires extending its rule to invalidate the agency's jurisdiction, justifying late filing	Motion filed over 30 days; untimely; no equitable tolling shown	Denied — motion untimely; no diligence or extraordinary circumstances to toll filing deadline

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (holding a notice to appear lacking time/place does not trigger the stop-time rule)
Bernard v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 1042 (7th Cir. 2018) (generalized country violence insufficient; petitioner must show individualized risk)
Ramos-Braga v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2018) (fear of generalized violence insufficient for CAT)
Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 1134 (7th Cir. 2015) (government efforts against gangs relevant to acquiescence analysis but not dispositive)
Jabateh v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 2017) (CAT requires government infliction or acquiescence)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Khan v. Holder, 766 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for BIA abuse-of-discretion in denial of motions)