Oscar Humberto Higueros v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR HUMBERTO HIGUEROS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71380
Agency No. A087-913-490
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Humberto Higueros, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Tapia
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013), and we grant the petition
for review and remand.
In assessing Higueros’s fear of torture, the BIA acknowledged the evidence
showed the existence of “rogue officials” in Guatemala, and found the existence of
rogue officials “cannot be used” to demonstrate that government officials would
acquiesce to any torture of Higueros. The BIA’s finding is not supported, see
Tapia Madrigal, 716 F.3d at 509-10 (“[A]n application for CAT relief need not
show that the entire foreign government would consent to or acquiesce in his
torture. He need show only that ‘a public official’ would so acquiesce.”), and its
analysis is otherwise not clear, see Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185,
1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (“When the agency’s reasoning is indiscernible, the courts
cannot exercise their duty of review, and instead must remand to the agency.”)
(internal citations and quotation omitted). Accordingly, we grant the petition and
remand Higueros’s CAT claim for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002).
In light of our disposition, we do address Higueros’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
11-71380 2

-- 2 of 2 --