Ricardo Acuna-Munoz v. Merrick Garland, 20-72032

Petitioner Ricardo Acuna-Munoz, a Mexican national, sought withholding of removal and CAT protection based on threats from La Pesada and La Granja gangs and alleged collusion between gangs and Mexican law enforcement.
The IJ denied withholding of removal and CAT relief; the IJ found Acuna-Munoz not credible on his accounts of encounters with law enforcement but found his testimony about gang problems credible.
Acuna-Munoz did not develop the withholding argument before the BIA; the Ninth Circuit held that failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the court of jurisdiction over the withholding claim and dismissed that part of the petition.
The IJ relied on inconsistencies between a lengthy affidavit (which mentioned detention by PGR) and Acuna-Munoz’s hearing testimony (saying local police detained him) to reject credibility as to state-perpetrated torture; the IJ also rejected the petitioner’s explanations for omissions as implausible.
Acuna-Munoz presented expert and country‑condition evidence suggesting law‑enforcement acquiescence or collusion with gangs, but the IJ did not analyze that evidence with respect to the gang‑torture theory; the BIA dismissed the gang theory as mere assertion.
The Ninth Circuit found the agency failed to consider probative evidence of acquiescence, granted the petition as to the gang‑torture theory, and remanded for further proceedings; the CAT claim premised solely on state torture was denied for lack of credible evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over withholding of removal (exhaustion)	Acuna‑Munoz challenged IJ’s denial of withholding on appeal	Government argued petitioner failed to raise/argue withholding before BIA	Court: petitioner failed to exhaust; court lacks jurisdiction; withholding claim dismissed
Credibility of testimony about law‑enforcement torture (CAT)	Acuna‑Munoz: IJ erred in finding inconsistent accounts (affidavit vs. hearing) and thus credibility should not be adverse	Government: inconsistencies and implausible explanations support adverse credibility finding	Court: substantial evidence supports IJ’s adverse credibility finding; CAT relief for state torture denied
CAT claim based on gang torture with government acquiescence	Acuna‑Munoz: expert and country‑condition evidence show likely acquiescence/collusion, so gang torture is likely	Government: record does not show probative evidence of cooperation; petitioner’s claim is assertion	Court: agency failed to consider probative evidence of acquiescence; petition granted as to gang‑torture theory and remanded for further proceedings

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requirement bars review of claims not raised before the agency)
Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues deemed exhausted are those raised and argued to the BIA)
Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for CAT factual findings: substantial evidence)
Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2017) (inconsistencies between affidavit and testimony can undermine credibility)
Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (minor inconsistencies considered under the totality of the circumstances)
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ may rely on inconsistency if alien fails to give a plausible explanation)
Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (CAT relief requires showing it is "more likely than not" that torture will occur)
Xochihua‑Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2020) (acquiescence requires official awareness of and breach of duty to prevent torture)
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence of official corruption or collusion can support acquiescence)
Garcia‑Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (police corruption evidence may establish government acquiescence in criminal activity)