NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE GERMAN CORONEL RESENDIZ, No. 17-73046 AKA Salvador Coronel, Agency No. A090-127-347 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 14, 2019 Pasadena, California Vacated October 7, 2019 Resubmitted April 20, 2020 Before: CALLAHAN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District Judge.*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. *** Pursuant to Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h, Judge Hurwitz was drawn by lot to replace our late colleague Judge Raymond T. Fisher. Judge Hurwitz has reviewed the record and briefs in this case and listened to the oral argument before the prior panel. Jorge German Coronel Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico and a former lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitions for review of a final removal order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Coronel Resendiz’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 As the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we do not recount them here. We note, however, that Coronel Resendiz suffers from schizophrenia and adjustment disorder and was deemed mentally incompetent to represent himself in his immigration proceedings. Because we conclude that the agency committed legal error by failing to consider or address the aggregate risk of torture from all sources, we grant the petition for review and remand. 1. The CAT’s implementing regulations require the agency to consider “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). We have interpreted this requirement to mean that “CAT claims must be considered in terms of the aggregate risk of torture from all sources, and not as separate, divisible CAT claims.” Quijada-Aguilar v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1303, 1308 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 775 (9th Cir. 2011)). “When 1 Although the IJ also denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal, Coronel Resendiz petitions for review of only the decision regarding his CAT claim. 2 nothing in the record or the BIA’s decision indicates a failure to consider all the evidence, a ‘general statement that [the agency] considered all the evidence before [it]’ may be sufficient.” Cole, 659 F.3d at 771 (alterations in original) (quoting Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006)). “But, where there is any indication that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it, a catchall phrase does not suffice, and the decision cannot stand. Such indications include misstating the record and failing to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence.” Id. at 771–72 (citations omitted). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals