Yolanda Navalles-Castillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOLANDA NAVALLES-CASTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1408
Agency No.
A013-557-782
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,*** District
Judge.
Yolanda Navalles-Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, Senior United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA has adopted, in part, the IJ’s reasoning as
its own, our review extends to both decisions. Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882
F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733,
737–38 (9th Cir. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th
1133 (9th Cir. 2021)). We ordinarily review the denial of CAT relief for
substantial evidence, but here, since the petition is pegged only to legal issues, our
review is de novo. Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
Petitioner, now 77 years of age, first entered the United States at age 16 as a
lawful permanent resident. In 2012, she was convicted of a federal drug trafficking
offense and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The Department of Homeland
Security initiated removal proceedings on January 3, 2013, alleging that
petitioner’s conviction rendered her removable.
With little disagreement at the merits hearing about the underlying facts, the
issues before the IJ were whether Navalles-Castillo’s conviction constituted an
“aggravated felony” or a “particularly serious crime” within the meaning of
§ 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and whether Navalles-Castillo
warranted relief under CAT. The IJ ruled against petitioner in each of these

-- 2 of 4 --

3
instances.
Each of the IJ’s findings was appealed to the BIA. The BIA affirmed
Navalles-Castillo’s appeal. Navalles-Castillo’s petition for review now navigates a
new tack. The petition has jettisoned the attack on the factual findings upheld by
the BIA, taking aim instead on process and the legal conclusions reached by the IJ
and BIA. With this shift, petitioner focuses on her CAT claim and argues that the
agency failed to properly consider all the evidence before it and applied the wrong
legal standard.
Navalles-Castillo’s strategic shift does not save her petition. Neither the IJ
nor BIA committed any procedural error, nor was there any error in the
conclusions they reached. The record is plain that the IJ and BIA considered all
evidence offered by petitioner, including a 74-page swath of country-conditions
materials. The BIA concluded that Navalles-Castillo failed to meet her burden
“even considering country conditions,” and the IJ stated that it considered all of her
exhibits. Navalles-Castillo did not identify this evidence as being highly probative
or potentially dispositive, and so the heightened requirement to explicitly discuss
such evidence was not triggered. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th
Cir. 2011) (the BIA must “give reasoned consideration” to highly probative or
potentially dispositive evidence). Any complaint on this basis falls short.
An applicant for CAT protection must demonstrate that it is more likely than

-- 3 of 4 --

4
not that she herself would be tortured if returned to her home country. 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(c)(2). The IJ and BIA expressly and properly applied that standard, and
substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Navalles-Castillo
failed to meet her burden. The relevant evidence Navalles-Castillo produced at the
removal hearing was limited to generalized evidence of police corruption in her
homeland, which is insufficient to carry her burden. See Gonzalez-Caraveo, 882
F.3d at 894–95 (citing Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010) (evidence must be “particular to Petitioner[]” to warrant CAT relief).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --