PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-1705 _____________ Jorge Luis Valarezo-Tirado, Petitioner v. Attorney General of the United States of America ________________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Immigration Court (Agency No. A208-449-401) Immigration Judge: Pallavi S. Shirole ________________ Argued on March 10, 2021 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 15, 2021) Charles W. Stotter, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 180 Park Avenue, Suite 106 Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Robert D. Helfand, Esquire (Argued) Office of the Connecticut State Comptroller Retirement Services Division 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06103 Counsel for Petitioner Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Esquire Anthony C. Payne, Esquire Lance J. Lolley, Esquire (Argued) Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Counsel for Respondent ________________ OPINION OF THE COURT ________________ McKEE, Circuit Judge Jorge Luis Valarezo-Tirado petitions this Court for review of an Immigration Judge’s reinstatement of his prior order of removal. The IJ affirmed a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asylum officer’s determination that Valarezo- Tirado did not have a reasonable fear of torture as required for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) or a reasonable fear of persecution as required for asylum and withholding of removal. Valarezo-Tirado appeals the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition for review and vacate the IJ’s decision and order and remand for further proceedings. I. A. Factual Background and Procedural History Jorge Luis Valarezo-Tirado, an Ecuadorian citizen, entered the United States illegally in 2017. He was subsequently detained by DHS, and in January 2020, DHS 2 reinstated a prior order of his removal. 1 However, before he was actually removed, DHS conducted a reasonable fear interview in front of an asylum officer because Valarezo- Tirado claimed a fear of persecution if he were returned to Ecuador. That interview began on February 20, 2020. At the start of the interview, Valarezo-Tirado was twice informed of his right to postpone the interview for up to 48 hours to procure an attorney. 2 He was also provided with a list of pro bono and low-cost attorneys who may be willing to represent him. However, both times he was asked, he declined, and decided to proceed with the interview that day without an attorney. 3 Valarezo-Tirado told the asylum officer that in 2016 he had a dispute with a neighbor, Enrique Villa, in his hometown of Pedro Vicente Maldonado, Ecuador. Valarezo-Tirado sold Villa a load of lumber. When Valarezo-Tirado went to collect payment, Villa refused to pay. 4 Valarezo-Tirado then went to the local police to file a report about Villa’s refusal, but the police allegedly told Valarezo-Tirado not to file a police report. According to Valarezo-Tirado, “they told me not to do anything, that he will pay me; that I should leave it alon[e] [and] that he will pay me.” 5 Officers also told Valarezo-Tirado that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals