NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA LEGARDA-BUGARIN, No. 20-73424 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-269-814 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 16, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Maria Legarda-Bugarin, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review the [BIA’s] legal conclusions de novo . . . and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (citations omitted). “We review claims of due process violations in deportation proceedings de novo . . . .” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). When, as here, the “BIA cites Matter of Burbano and does not expressly disagree with the IJ’s decision, it adopts the IJ’s decision in its entirety.” See Bondarenko v. Holder, 733 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994) and Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). “When the BIA cites Burbano but adds its own analysis, we review factual findings by both the BIA and the IJ for substantial evidence.” Id. (citations omitted). We grant the petition for review in part, deny it in part, and remand for further proceedings. 1. Legarda-Bugarin argues that the BIA erred when it failed to consider the aggregate risk of torture from all sources. We agree. To qualify for deferral of removal under CAT, a petitioner must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). “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)). In other words, a petitioner need only show that “taking into account all possible sources of torture, he is more likely than not to be tortured.” Cole, 659 F.3d at 775. 2 In support of her CAT claim, Legarda-Bugarin offered three independent reasons why she would be subjected to torture if she is returned to the Phillippines. She has presented evidence that she will be tortured by the Philippine government and/or state-directed vigilantes because: (1) the government will discover her past drug use through her criminal records; (2) community members will discover her past drug use and place her on a drug …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals