Rosa Cabrera Vasquez v. William Barr, 919 F.3d 218

Background

Rosa Cabrera Vasquez and her son Brandon discovered an 18th Street gang clandestine graveyard in El Salvador and thereafter received multiple death threats, including a 24-hour ultimatum to leave the country.
Cabrera twice reported threats to local police; officers first declined action for lack of proof and later mocked her and accused her son of gang membership when presented with written threats.
Fearing for their lives and receiving no protection from police or family in Mexico, Cabrera and Brandon entered the U.S. without documents on July 12, 2014 and were placed in removal proceedings.
Cabrera applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the IJ found her testimony credible but denied CAT relief, concluding the threats were not torture and that she failed to show government acquiescence.
The BIA affirmed solely on the ground that country-condition reports showed the Salvadoran government was combating gangs and therefore unlikely to acquiesce in torture; the BIA did not meaningfully address Cabrera’s testimony about police conduct.
The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the BIA’s CAT determination, finding the BIA failed to consider material, credible evidence of police conduct and thus abused its discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA erred by failing to consider Cabrera’s testimony that police turned her away when evaluating government acquiescence under CAT	Cabrera: BIA ignored credible, material testimony showing officials "turned a blind eye," which supports acquiescence and CAT relief	Gov’t: Country reports show government efforts against gangs, undermining inference of acquiescence; BIA’s focus on country conditions was proper	Held: BIA erred—it failed to engage Cabrera’s credible testimony about police refusal to help, requiring remand for further consideration
Whether the threats she suffered constitute torture under CAT	Cabrera: Death threats and surrounding violence may amount to torture warranting CAT protection	Gov’t: Threats alone insufficient to meet CAT’s definition absent government acquiescence	Held: Remand required; court noted IJ summarily found threats not torture without analysis and instructed that any future finding must include meaningful reasoning
Standard of review for BIA factual findings	Cabrera: BIA must not arbitrarily ignore unrebutted, legally significant evidence; review ensures reasoned consideration	Gov’t: Substantial-evidence deference to BIA’s factual findings, especially on country conditions	Held: Substantial-evidence review applies, but court will vacate when evidence compels contrary conclusion or BIA fails to engage material evidence
Proper standard for showing government acquiescence under CAT	Cabrera: Acquiescence requires only that officials turn a blind eye; actual knowledge or willful acceptance not required	Gov’t: Implied requirement of more affirmative government acceptance	Held: Court reiterated that officials need not have actual knowledge; turning a blind eye can constitute acquiescence and IJ erred if requiring "willful acceptance"

Key Cases Cited

Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for CAT and government acquiescence)
Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2014) (officials may "turn a blind eye" to torture; knowledge not required)
Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2009) (BIA/IJ must fairly consider and weigh applicant’s evidence)
Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review where BIA fails to offer reasoned explanation)
Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2012) (substantial-evidence review of CAT findings)
Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2012) (error where agency wholesale ignores relevant evidence)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (standard on compelling contrary conclusion for asylum-type reviews)
Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902 (4th Cir. 2014) (review limited to BIA opinion when BIA issues independent decision)
Tairou v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 702 (4th Cir. 2018) (reviewing BIA’s order when it issues its own reasoning)
Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2005) (principle that BIA opinion controls review when it issues independent reasoning)