NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 17 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HANDEL CLASSIUS BULGIN, No. 19-71419 Petitioner, Agency No. A074-841-190 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 4, 2020 Seattle, Washington Before: GOULD, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Handel Bulgin, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 The court reviews the agency’s legal conclusions de novo, Santiago- Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011), and its factual findings for substantial evidence, Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Substantial evidence means a factual finding is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). We uphold the agency determination “unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028. Where, as here, the Board cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994) and provides its own conclusions, this Court reviews both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1239–40 (9th Cir.2010)). 1. Bulgin first argues that, without analysis or even addressing the IJ’s decision, the Board erroneously disregarded the IJ’s finding of a likelihood of torture and substituted its own conclusion that Bulgin’s fear of being tortured in Jamaica at the hands of the One Order and Clansmen gangs was “speculative.” “[T]he BIA cannot disregard the IJ's findings and substitute its own view of the facts. Either it must find clear error, explaining why; or, if critical facts are missing, it may remand to the IJ.” Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 919 (9th Cir. 2012). The IJ found Bulgin would more likely than not be tortured or killed if he were returned to Jamaica. The BIA stated Bulgin’s fear was “speculative,” but it 2 did not explain its reasoning or remand to the IJ. The BIA’s conclusory statement is insufficient. 2. Bulgin also argues that the IJ and the BIA erred in concluding that it is not more likely than not Bulgin will be tortured with the acquiescence or willful blindness of public officials in Jamaica. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194– 95 (9th Cir. 2003); Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705–06 (9th Cir. 2010). Country condition reports alone can be sufficient to prove that public officials are likely to acquiesce to torture. Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir. 2001). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals