Ruiz-Guerrero v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 572

Petitioner Josefina Arelis Ruiz-Guerrero, a Dominican citizen, was ordered removed after a 2013 U.S. conviction and sought deferral of removal under the CAT following reentry and reinstatement of removal.
Ruiz claimed she would likely be tortured if returned because her long-term partner, Rafael Velázquez, who previously abused her, lives in the Dominican Republic.
Ruiz testified she reported at least one incident to Dominican police in 2014; police responded but did not apprehend Velázquez, who fled for about fifteen days; Ruiz stopped reporting thereafter out of fear and frustration.
The IJ found Ruiz credible, relied on country reports about gender-based violence, and granted CAT deferral, expressing doubt police would protect her.
The BIA reversed, finding the IJ used an improper standard and concluding Ruiz failed to show government acquiescence or that torture was more likely than not on return.
On review, the First Circuit upheld the BIA: the record (Ruiz’s testimony plus State Department and other reports) did not compel a finding of government acquiescence in torture.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ruiz established that torture on return is "more likely than not" and that it would be inflicted with government acquiescence	Ruiz argued her past police report and police ineffectiveness show the government would acquiesce and that she faces a likelihood of torture by her abuser	The government argued the evidence (including the State Dept. Country Report) shows the Dominican Republic has agencies and policies addressing violence against women and does not establish acquiescence	Held: BIA correct — record does not compel finding of government acquiescence or that torture is more likely than not; denial of CAT deferral affirmed
Whether the BIA erred by reversing the IJ rather than remanding for correct application of the CAT standard	Ruiz sought either reversal or remand, arguing the BIA ignored or misweighed evidence	The government maintained the BIA properly applied the legal standard and its factual conclusion is supported by the record	Held: Court agreed with BIA that IJ used incorrect standard and that BIA’s factual conclusion is supported; no remand warranted

Thapaliya v. Holder, 750 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing agency factual findings)
Sunarto Ang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2013) (review scope for BIA factual determinations)
Granada-Rubio v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2016) (denial of CAT relief where government acquiescence not shown)
Aguilar-De Guillen v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2018) (CAT "more likely than not" standard)
Rosales Justo v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 2018) (acquiescence requirement under CAT)
Morris v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018) (defining acquiescence and fact questions about government protection)
Dawoud v. Holder, 561 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2009) (issues not raised are deemed waived)
Makieh v. Holder, 572 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2009) (affirming denial where petitioner failed to show government acquiescence)
Ortiz-Araniba v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2007) (government unwilling/unable to protect is a question of fact)