FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL ANGEL VELASQUEZ- No. 21-70093 SAMAYOA, Petitioner, Agency No. A044-804-654 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney OPINION General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 10, 2022 Pasadena, California Filed June 24, 2022 Before: Richard C. Tallman and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Edward R. Korman, * District Judge. Opinion by Judge Friedland * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 2 VELASQUEZ-SAMAYOA V. GARLAND SUMMARY ** Immigration Granting Miguel Angel Velasquez-Samayoa’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred by failing to adequately consider Velasquez-Samayoa’s aggregate risk of torture from multiple sources, and erred in rejecting Velasquez-Samayoa’s expert’s credible testimony solely because it was not corroborated by additional country conditions evidence. Velasquez-Samayoa asserted that, if he were removed to his native country of El Salvador, he would be identified as a gang member based on his gang tattoos and face a significant risk of being killed or tortured—either by Salvadoran officials or by members of a rival gang with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. Relying on Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006), the Board concluded that Velasquez-Samayoa failed to demonstrate a clear probability of torture because he did not establish that every step in a hypothetical chain of events was more likely than not to happen. The panel concluded that the Board erred by failing to assess Velasquez-Samayoa’s aggregate risk of torture. Discussing Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011), the panel explained that when an applicant posits multiple theories for why he might be tortured, the relevant inquiry is whether—considering all possible sources of and reasons for ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. VELASQUEZ-SAMAYOA V. GARLAND 3 torture—the total probability that the applicant will be tortured exceeds 50 percent. For example, if an applicant is at risk of torture from police, death squads, and gangs, he need not prove that each group, treated individually, would more likely than not torture him. The panel explained that Cole’s approach is consistent with Matter of J-F-F-, which provides that, when an applicant posits a single theory for why he would be tortured, but the torture will come about only if several hypothetical events all occur in sequence, an applicant must show that the individual probability of each event occurring is greater than 50 percent. Here, the Board considered Velasquez-Samayoa’s two separate theories of torture—either by Salvadoran officials or by members of a rival gang—as a single hypothetical chain of events and denied his CAT claim because the probability of that hypothetical chain occurring was not high enough. The panel concluded …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals