Rosa Ortez-Cruz v. William Barr, 951 F.3d 190

Rosa Del Carmen Ortez-Cruz, a Honduran national, suffered severe domestic violence by a former partner (Jose Genaro Auceda), including stabbing and hospitalization around 2000; she fled to the U.S. in 2002 and has not seen him since.
IJ and Board assumed two particular social groups (Honduran women in abusive domestic relationships) and found past persecution, triggering the future-threat presumption for withholding of removal.
The IJ and BIA concluded the government rebutted that presumption in two alternative ways: (1) a fundamental change in circumstances (Auceda no longer posed a threat) and (2) safe internal relocation (Ortez-Cruz could live with her mother in southern Honduras). The IJ also denied relief under the CAT.
Ortez-Cruz presented an expert on domestic violence/PTSD who opined that serial abusers may remain lethal after long periods of no contact and that Honduras’s law enforcement rarely prosecutes femicides, undermining safe-relocation assumptions.
The Fourth Circuit held the government failed to meet its burden to rebut the future-threat presumption (remanding with instructions to grant withholding of removal), but affirmed denial of CAT relief because the CAT requires a higher showing and past abuse does not create a presumption of future torture.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government rebutted the future-threat presumption for withholding of removal	Ortez-Cruz: government produced no probative evidence; expert testimony and past persecution make it more likely than not that Auceda remains a threat and she cannot safely relocate	Government: fifteen+ years without contact, no corroboration of recent threats, and available relocation (mother’s home) show changed circumstances or that internal relocation is reasonable	Court: Government failed to prove either rebuttal condition; vacated denial and remanded with instruction to grant withholding of removal
Whether Ortez-Cruz is eligible for CAT protection	Ortez-Cruz: past severe abuse plus Honduras’s ineffective law enforcement makes future torture (with state acquiescence) more likely than not	Government: insufficient evidence of probability of torture or state consent/acquiescence	Court: Affirmed denial—past abuse alone doesn’t create CAT presumption and record insufficient to show more-likely-than-not torture with state acquiescence

Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2018) (reviewing both IJ and BIA when BIA issues its own opinion)
Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2011) (agency may not ignore unrebutted, legally significant evidence or rely on speculation)
Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2009) (factfinder must consider the whole record and not base decisions on isolated snippets)
Jian Tao Lin v. Holder, 611 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2010) (adjudicator cannot discredit testimony based on unsupported personal opinion)
Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2008) (standard for withholding of removal: clear probability of future threat)
Dong v. Sessions, [citation="743 F. App'x 513"] (4th Cir. 2018) (government must prove its view of evidence is more probable to rebut future-threat presumption)
Singh v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2018) (vacating rebuttal finding where government produced no evidence and argument was perfunctory)
Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2019) (deciding CAT/withholding issues in serial-abuser context; illustrates where relocation findings can be rejected)
Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2010) (threat need not be imminent to support withholding or relocation analysis)
Bace v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 2003) (lack of proof that an abuser lost interest cannot be held against applicant)