Raul Barajas-Romero v. Loretta E. Lynch
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 858
9th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Raul Barajas‑Romero, a Mexican national previously deported, was kidnapped and tortured in Mexico in 2006 by four off‑duty local police officers and later reentered the U.S.; he admits the torture and an IJ found him credible.
- During the kidnapping the officers extorted him, inflicted cigarette burns, slashes, scorpion stings, and left a conspicuous forehead scar; petitioner testified the abuse escalated after he expressed opposition to police corruption.
- Petitioner applied for withholding of removal (8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)) and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); the IJ and BIA denied withholding because the harm was extortion by “rogue police” not motivated by political opinion, and denied CAT relief finding petitioner could relocate safely and that the government’s national anti‑corruption efforts undercut an acquiescence finding.
- The Ninth Circuit granted review and addressed: (1) whether the REAL ID Act’s “one central reason” asylum nexus standard applies to withholding claims that statutorily require persecution “because of” a protected ground (phrased in the withholding statute as “a reason”), and (2) whether the BIA erred in applying a “rogue official” exception and in placing the burden on petitioner to prove inability to relocate for CAT relief.
- The court held Congress’s amendment adopting “one central reason” for asylum did not amend the withholding statute’s different language; it also held CAT requires state action by a public official (or acquiescence) and rejected a separate “rogue official” exception; and the BIA improperly shifted the burden to petitioner on internal relocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus standard for withholding of removal: whether REAL ID Act’s “one central reason” applies to withholding | Barajas‑Romero: the withholding statute uses “a reason,” which is a different, less demanding standard; REAL ID asylum language did not amend withholding | Government/BIA: REAL ID’s intent and precedent (Matter of C‑T‑L‑) mean the same “one central reason” standard should apply to withholding | Court: “a reason” is a distinct, less demanding standard; Congress intentionally used different language, so “one central reason” does not apply to withholding; remand to apply correct standard |
| Whether petitioner’s expressed anti‑corruption statement satisfied nexus for withholding when extortion was also a motive | Barajas‑Romero: his political statement materially increased the severity of torture and was at least part of the motive | Government: primary motive was extortion; the political remark was irrelevant or incidental | Court: factual dispute unresolved under wrong standard; remanded for BIA to reassess under “a reason” standard |
| CAT state‑action/acquiescence requirement and existence of a “rogue official” exception | Barajas‑Romero: torturers were public officials; their acts and surrounding evidence show likely acquiescence or inability/unwillingness of state to protect him | Government/BIA: torturers were rogue officers; national anti‑corruption laws and efforts show lack of state acquiescence; petitioner could relocate | Court: no “rogue official” exception; CAT requires torture inflicted by or with acquiescence of public officials (including local officers); BIA erred by focusing only on national policy rather than local efficacy; remand required |
| Burden regarding internal relocation under CAT | Barajas‑Romero: petitioner should not bear the burden to prove relocation is impossible; all evidence must be considered without burden‑shifting | Government/BIA: petitioner must show he cannot safely relocate within Mexico | Court: BIA applied pre‑Maldonado burden shifting in error; under Maldonado the regulation requires consideration of relocation evidence but does not shift burden to petitioner; remand for reconsideration under correct standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Borja v. I.N.S., 175 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1999) (adopted “at least in part” mixed‑motive standard pre‑REAL ID)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (statutory drafting differences indicate congressional intent)
- Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (local/state official acquiescence can satisfy CAT even if federal government does not acquiesce)
- Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (CAT regulations require consideration of relocation evidence without burden shifting)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (no nexus established in that record; did not decide statutory text difference)
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (motive inquiry centers on persecutor’s reason)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (remand to agency for further proceedings)