Rufino A. Estrada-Martinez v. Loretta E. Lynch
809 F.3d 886
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rufino Estrada-Martinez, a Honduran national, was tortured by police in 1993–94 after leading a peasant land takeover; he fled to the U.S., obtained asylum in 1995, and later worked in Chicago.
- In 1996 he pled guilty to statutory rape (relationship with a 16‑year‑old), received four years probation and sex‑offender registration; his conviction led to reinstatement of removal proceedings in 2013.
- An IJ granted withholding of removal (INA and CAT) and deferral under the CAT, finding it more likely than not Estrada would be tortured if returned to Honduras based on past torture, ongoing threats, Martinez’s connections to security forces, and country‑condition reports.
- The BIA reversed both the IJ’s “particularly serious crime” assessment and the IJ’s factual finding on likelihood of torture, reweighing evidence rather than applying the required clear‑error review for factual findings.
- The Seventh Circuit held it lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary finding that Estrada’s conviction is a "particularly serious crime," but found the BIA erred as a matter of law by failing to review the IJ’s torture finding for clear error and remanded on CAT deferral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review BIA’s “particularly serious crime” determination | Estrada: BIA used an improper categorical approach and ignored mitigating facts (age of victim, probation) — legal error permitting review | Gov: Determination is discretionary and barred from review by 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; BIA’s analysis was not purely categorical and was discretionary, so review barred absent a legal/constitutional question |
| Whether statutory rape conviction bars withholding under INA/CAT | Estrada: conviction not "particularly serious" given sentence and circumstances | Gov: conviction appropriately characterized as "particularly serious" | Court: BIA’s finding stands (no jurisdiction to review) |
| Proper standard for BIA review of IJ’s factual finding that torture is "more likely than not" | Estrada: IJ’s credibility and findings supported likelihood of torture; BIA must apply clear‑error review | Gov: BIA reweighed evidence and was "not persuaded"—effectively de novo review | Court: BIA committed legal error by reweighing facts instead of applying clear‑error standard; remanded for proper review; if IJ’s finding not clearly erroneous, Estrada entitled to CAT deferral |
| Remedy where BIA applied wrong standard | Estrada: remand or grant relief because facts are undisputed and compel relief | Gov: deference to BIA decision | Court: Remanded to BIA to apply clear‑error standard; if BIA cannot show clear error, grant CAT deferral |
Key Cases Cited
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (jurisdictional limits on review of agency discretion)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (standard for "clear error" review of factual findings)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (distinguishing categorical approach from consideration of underlying facts)
- Rosiles-Camarena v. Holder, 735 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. precedent on factual findings and CAT review)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (defining categorical approach)