FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARLENA DAWSON, No. 19-73124 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A072-583-249 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 13, 2021 Pasadena, California Filed May 26, 2021 Before: Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Kathryn H. Vratil, * District Judge. Opinion by Judge Vratil; Dissent by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. * The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 2 DAWSON V. GARLAND SUMMARY ** Immigration Denying Karlena Dawson’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, the panel held that the record did not compel a finding that it is more likely than not that Dawson would suffer future torture if returned to Jamaica. Dawson sought CAT relief based on the physical abuse she suffered at the hands of her former domestic partner. The panel agreed with the Board that even assuming Dawson suffered past torture, the record did not compel the conclusion that she faces a likelihood of future torture if returned to Jamaica, given her changed circumstances, including a Jamaican court’s issuance of a protection order, and her former partner’s departure from her household. The panel explained that in assessing the likelihood of future torture, the adjudicator must consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, including whether circumstances or conditions have changed significantly with respect to the particular individual, and not merely information about general changes in the country. The panel also concluded that the record supported a finding that Dawson could safely relocate within Jamaica to avoid future torture, given that Dawson’s former partner’s purported connections to the government did not prevent Dawson from obtaining and enforcing the protection order, ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. DAWSON V. GARLAND 3 which allowed her to stay in her former partner’s home; the Jamaican police were responsive to reports when her former partner violated the protection order, arresting him on one occasion; and before returning to the United States, Dawson was able to relocate to her friend’s house in another town where she had no physical contact with her former partner. The panel rejected Dawson’s contention that the IJ failed to consider or give proper weight to country report evidence concerning the treatment of women in Jamaica, which she asserted demonstrated a particularized risk of violence to herself. The panel explained that circumstances for Jamaican women in general did not vitiate the agency’s specific findings as to Dawson’s situation, and that while the country reports reference generalized domestic violence against women, that evidence did not compel a conclusion that Dawson would more likely than not be subjected to violence from her former …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals