Victor Paredes Gonzales v. Merrick B. Garland, 29f4th989

Background

Petitioners are three Bolivian brothers who, with a partner, operated Tierra Dulce, an organic stevia company; investors later accused them of fraud and warrants issued in Bolivia.
Petitioners entered the U.S. on temporary visas in 2015, stayed after visas expired, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
Bolivian authorities obtained Interpol Red Notices for Victor and Jose; Pablo had returned to Bolivia. Petitioners conceded removability; hearings took place in 2020.
The IJ found Petitioners not credible (citing discrepancies between 2016 affidavits and 2020 testimony and lack of corroborating business records) and denied CAT relief; the BIA affirmed.
Petitioners sought remand after Interpol deleted two Red Notices in 2021; the court held deletion was based on Interpol procedural sufficiency, not merits, and denied remand.
On the merits, the court applied the substantial-evidence standard and denied the petition, finding insufficient proof that Petitioners would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Bolivia.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Interpol’s deletion of Red Notices requires remand/affects credibility	Deletion impeaches the Red Notices and undermines IJ’s reliance; court should remand for reconsideration	Interpol deleted notices for procedural insufficiency and did not opine on merits; deletion is immaterial to CAT dispositive issues	Denied remand; Interpol action not material to CAT determination
Validity of IJ’s adverse credibility finding	IJ ignored evidence about political motivation of Red Notices; relied on minor inconsistencies; failed to consider explanations for missing records	IJ identified significant, substantive inconsistencies (new physical-attack claims, different identified ringleader, vague business knowledge) and absence of corroboration	Adverse credibility finding upheld under substantial-evidence review
Whether IJ/BIA applied correct legal standard for CAT likelihood of torture	Indefinite pretrial detention and prison conditions can amount to torture; tribunal should assess whether detention is a lawful sanction and whether harm is specifically intended	CAT requires showing that torture is more likely than not and that harm is intentional or by/with state acquiescence; poor conditions from neglect do not satisfy CAT	IJ/BIA applied correct standard; substantial evidence supports finding Petitioners did not meet CAT burden
Whether detention/prison conditions and alleged past abuse establish state-sponsored torture risk	Petitioners point to Victor’s alleged attacks, Luis’s alleged torture in custody, and State Dept. reports of abusive prison conditions	Evidence showed past abuse did not rise to intentional torture by state actors and prison conditions resulted from neglect/underfunding, not targeted intent	Petitioners failed to show specific, individualized likelihood of state-sponsored torture; CAT relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Mumad v. Garland, 11 F.4th 834 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for BIA decisions)
Galloso v. Barr, 954 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 2020) (review of IJ decisions adopted by BIA)
Tian v. Barr, 932 F.3d 664 (8th Cir. 2019) (deference to credibility findings and required specificity)
Nadeem v. Holder, 599 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2010) (credible-findings must be specific and reviewable)
Coto-Albarenga v. Garland, 4 F.4th 628 (8th Cir. 2021) (substantial-evidence support for credibility findings)
Ademo v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2015) (likelihood-of-torture is a factual inquiry reviewed for substantial evidence)
Abdi Omar v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2020) (countrywide human-rights patterns insufficient without individualized risk)
Cherichel v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2010) (abusive or squalid conditions from neglect do not establish CAT torture)