Roberto Maldonado v. Eric Holder, Jr.
786 F.3d 1155
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Maldonado, a former lawful permanent resident, was deported to Mexico multiple times after a 1991 burglary conviction and alleges he was repeatedly tortured by corrupt Mexican police who forced him into an enterprise that victimized deportees.
- He testified credibly to severe torture (beatings, electric shocks, cigarette burns, near asphyxiation) and that the corrupt police coerced him to guide deportees to be kidnapped; he later reentered the U.S. and was removed again.
- After DHS reinstated his 1997 removal order, an asylum officer found a reasonable fear of torture and referred him for CAT relief; before an IJ he sought only CAT deferral of removal.
- The IJ credited Maldonado’s testimony but denied CAT relief based on the conclusion that internal relocation within Mexico was possible and that the government was prosecuting police corruption.
- The BIA affirmed, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent (notably Lemus-Galvan) that placed on petitioners a burden regarding internal relocation; the Ninth Circuit granted review, overruled prior case law to the extent it imposed a separate relocation burden, and remanded to the BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper allocation of burden on internal relocation under CAT | Maldonado: §1208.16(c)(3) requires consideration of relocation evidence but does not shift burden; petitioner bears overall burden to prove likelihood of torture | Government/BIA: prior Ninth Circuit framework required petitioner to show internal relocation impossible or inability to safely relocate | Court: Overrules prior cases to the extent they imposed a separate burden; petitioner retains overall burden to prove "more likely than not" torture and IJ must consider relocation as one non‑dispositive factor |
| Mootness of petition after removal | Maldonado: not moot — DMV record indicates he likely returned to U.S.; relief (deferral) would allow him to remain | Government: removal raises mootness concerns but did not press dismissal; argued agency should decide relocation issues first | Court: Petition not moot; proceeds because evidence suggests petitioner is present in U.S. and relief would affect him |
| Applicability of asylum burden-shifting to CAT relocation | Maldonado: CAT regs lack asylum’s explicit burden-shifting; asylum cases inapt | Government/BIA: relied on analogous asylum principles in some precedents | Court: Rejects importing asylum burden-shifting (overrules Perez-Ramirez to that extent) |
| Standard of review and remand | Maldonado: BIA relied on now-overruled precedent making relocation dispositive; needs reconsideration | Government: BIA should clarify regulations in first instance | Held: Grant petition and remand to BIA to reevaluate CAT claim consistent with proper reading of §1208.16(c)(3) and Ninth Circuit precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2004) (prior Ninth Circuit discussion of relocation in CAT context)
- Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2008) (used by BIA to require showing that internal relocation was impossible)
- Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (relied on Hasan regarding relocation consideration)
- Perez-Ramirez v. Holder, 648 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2011) (imported asylum burden-shifting into CAT; partially overruled here)
- Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (describes petitioner’s burden under CAT)
- Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2009) (agency deference principles for BIA regulation interpretation)