CA9 on CAT, Mexico: Barajas-Romero v. Lynch

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, Jan. 18, 2017- "We hold that “a reason” is a less demanding standard than “one central reason.” The statutory language is unambiguously different, with different meanings, so there is no ambiguity justifying deference to the administrative agency’s contrary view. The different language should not be treated as though it means the same thing. The withholding statute differs from the asylum statute in various ways, not just this one, so there is no reason to assume that Congress meant for them to be the same in this respect. ... The government argues that the police kidnapped and tortured Barajas-Romero to extort money, so his voicing of a political opinion on the third day of his kidnapping and torture could not mean that the torture was because of or on account of his previously unknown and irrelevant (to the persecutors) anti-corruption opinion. The evidence, though, is not unambiguous. The torture became much worse after Barajas-Romero voiced his anti-corruption opinion. Because the BIA accepted the government’s view under the wrong standard, we remand to the BIA to decide the case under the correct standard: “a reason” rather than “one central reason.” "

[Hats way off to Katherine Cheng (argued), Certified Law Student, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California; Michael W. Reynolds (argued), and Carlos M. Lazatin, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Petitioner!]