NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERMAN PANIAGUA-RODRIGUEZ, No. 19-72502 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-014-933 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 15, 2021 Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and SELNA,** District Judge. Petitioner German Paniagua-Rodriguez timely seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of relief from removal. Before we heard oral argument, the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. government filed a motion to remand part of the case to the BIA. Dock. No. 57. 1. We deny the petition as to the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that, because Petitioner pleaded guilty to a drug trafficking crime in state court and admitted his participation to the IJ, the agency had a "reason to believe" that Petitioner had committed a drug trafficking crime that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Id. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(2)(C), 1229b(b)(1)(B); see Chavez-Reyes v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 2014) ("[A] voluntary guilty plea to criminal charges is probative evidence that the petitioner did, in fact, engage in the charged activity, even if the conviction is later overturned for a reason unrelated to voluntariness."). Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary do not persuade us. 2. We deny the government’s motion to remand insofar as it seeks to remand Petitioner’s claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The BIA fully considered and resolved Petitioner’s CAT claim, and no new law or facts pertain to this claim, so we may decide this issue in the ordinary course. Neither INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam), nor its underlying principles, require that we remand this issue. 3. We grant the petition as to CAT relief. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s determination that Petitioner failed to prove that he will, more 2 likely than not, be tortured if removed to Mexico. Petitioner agreed to testify against members of the Sinaloa cartel, and a copy of the agreement was posted to a public docket and sent to his co-defendants. Ample evidence in the record, including country reports, news articles, and expert testimony, compels the conclusion that Petitioner likely will be tortured. Neither the passage of time, nor the fact that Petitioner did not suffer past torture, nor the lack of threats detracts from the evidence in the unique circumstances present here. None of the cases cited by the government involves, as present here, pervasive evidence of the general likelihood of torture from a cartel or other …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals