## Facts

- Lucero Xochihua-Jaimes, a Mexican national from Veracruz, suffered repeated sexual abuse beginning in childhood and alleged the abuse was tied to her sexual orientation and tolerated by those around her.
- As a teenager, she was raped by a teacher, became pregnant, and was rejected by her family; she then entered the United States without admission or parole.
- In the United States, she later had an abusive partner with connections to Los Zetas; after she reported him for sexually assaulting her minor daughter, he was imprisoned.
- Following the report, the partner’s family threatened that Xochihua-Jaimes and her daughter would be killed if they returned to Mexico.
- She sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), relying on her history of severe violence, threats linked to cartel affiliates, and evidence that cartels operate broadly in Mexico and LGBTQ individuals face heightened risk.
- An Immigration Judge found her credible but denied CAT relief, concluding she had not shown it was more likely than not she would be tortured with government acquiescence.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding insufficient proof of likely future torture, official consent or acquiescence, and inability to safely relocate within Mexico.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that Xochihua-Jaimes failed to show it was more likely than not she would be tortured if removed to Mexico.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that any torture would not occur with the consent or acquiescence (including willful blindness) of a public official.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that she could safely relocate within Mexico to avoid torture.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review.
- The court held substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s denial of CAT deferral.
- The record compelled the conclusion that Xochihua-Jaimes was more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico and that public officials would acquiesce.
- The court held the BIA erred in treating generalized national anti-cartel efforts as defeating acquiescence and in relying on unsupported speculation about internal relocation.
- The case was remanded with instructions for the BIA to grant deferral of removal under CAT.

## Legal Principles

- CAT protection requires showing it is more likely than not the applicant will be tortured if removed and that torture will be inflicted by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity.
- “Acquiescence” includes willful blindness; it is not limited to express approval by officials.
- General governmental opposition to criminal organizations does not, by itself, negate acquiescence where record evidence shows corruption, complicity, or systemic failures to protect against torture.
- Internal relocation analysis in CAT cases must be grounded in record evidence; speculative assertions that a person can hide elsewhere in the country are inadequate.
- Under substantial-evidence review, relief is warranted when the record not only supports, but compels, the conclusion that CAT requirements are satisfied; in that circumstance, a court may direct the agency to grant CAT deferral.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the evidence compelled a finding that Xochihua-Jaimes would more likely than not be tortured in Mexico with public-official acquiescence and that the BIA’s internal-relocation rationale lacked evidentiary support, requiring an order granting CAT deferral.


Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2020)