FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 22, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court EFREN MEDINA-MORENO, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9593 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. ------------------------------ DISABILITY RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL; PROFESSOR JUAN E. MENDEZ, Amici Curiae. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, MURPHY and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Efren Medina-Moreno (Medina) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA or Board) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. I. Background Medina is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident and spouse of a United States citizen in 1970. In 1992, he was convicted in Colorado state court of attempted first-degree murder, second-degree assault, and kidnapping. After serving his prison sentence, he was released to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which initiated removal proceedings based on his criminal convictions. After an IJ sustained the charge of removability, Medina filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. His application for deferral of removal under the CAT is the only one he pursues in his petition for review, so we limit our discussion to issues relevant to that application. Medina has been diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder, a neurocognitive disorder that affects his memory and cognitive abilities, and various physical ailments. He appeared pro se for a hearing on his asylum application but the presiding IJ found him incompetent to represent himself and appointed a qualified representative to safeguard his due process rights. Later, at the hearing on his deferral application, the IJ adopted all but one of the safeguards the qualified representative proposed. The one she rejected would have required her to accord “great weight” to expert testimony and country-conditions evidence, Admin. R., Vol. 2 2 at 614, and in rejecting it the IJ said she would accord the evidence “appropriate weight,” id. at 615. Medina’s argument in support of his deferral application had three key components. First, he claimed he will not have access to the mental-health treatment and family support he needs in Mexico and will therefore likely be placed in a Mexican psychiatric institution if removed. Second, he maintained that the conditions he would face if institutionalized ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals