Robert S. Panton v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued June 6, 2023
Decided June 15, 2023
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 21-2346
ROBERT S. PANTON,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A031-257-320
O R D E R
Robert Panton, a Jamaican national, was released from federal prison after a
district court reduced his life sentence for a heroin conspiracy conviction. Because of his
conviction, he now faces removal to Jamaica. He argues that an immigration judge and
the Board of Immigration Appeals incorrectly denied him deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture. Because each relied on reasonable factual conclusions and
did not misapply the law, we deny his petition for review.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 21-2346 Page 2
Background
Panton came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1970 when he
was four years old. In the 1990s, he participated in a large heroin distribution
conspiracy in New York City. The leader of the conspiracy was arrested. Because
Panton was not arrested at the same time, some believed he was an informant. This led
to serious retaliation—Panton was approached on the street and shot. He survived and,
while recovering, was arrested for his role in the conspiracy. He was convicted of
conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),
and sentenced to life in prison.
In 1998, while Panton was in prison, a group of prisoners accosted him. The
group threatened him, accusing him of cooperating with the government in exchange
for a reduced sentence. Panton avoided a violent altercation that day by showing them
his sentencing paperwork, confirming his life sentence. But only some group members
were satisfied that he had not cooperated. Panton was later threatened once more but
ultimately “let alone” when suspicions of cooperation could not be substantiated.
Another member of the drug-trafficking conspiracy, Ward Johnson, did
cooperate with the government and, in return, received a shorter sentence—just 18
months in prison. Johnson was a member of the Shower Posse gang, which has a strong
presence in Jamaica and New York City. Johnson was murdered around 2013, possibly
as retaliation for cooperating.
In 2020, a federal district court reduced Panton’s sentence and he was released
from prison. The court reasoned, in part, that Panton’s sentence was disproportionately
harsh, and he had clearly dedicated himself to being a “law-abiding” person. For
instance, while participating in a youth outreach program, Panton—on his own
initiative after spotting signs of abuse—helped a child report her sexual abuse to the
authorities.
After Panton’s release, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal
proceedings based on his conviction for an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Because Panton’s sentence exceeded five years, he could not qualify
for asylum, id. § 1231(b)(3)(B), but he remained eligible for one narrow path to relief:
deferral of removal based on the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17. If
granted deferral of removal, Panton could not be removed to Jamaica until an
immigration judge determined that he was no longer at risk of being tortured there. Id.

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 21-2346 Page 3
Panton sought deferral, arguing that he was more likely than not to be tortured if
removed to Jamaica. At a hearing before an immigration judge, Panton offered evidence
that gangs, including the Shower Posse, are powerful forces in Jamaica; that gangs
sometimes operate in tandem with the government; and that the government cannot
and would not meaningfully protect him. Panton added that in Jamaica’s capital of
Kingston (where he would live if removed), gangs often control access to basic
resources such as jobs and food. Panton stated that the Shower Posse would target him
out of a mistaken belief that he played a role in Johnson’s murder or cooperated with
the government. Panton also stated that the gang may attack him because of his
connection to his cousin, a former rival gang member. (Their connection is public
knowledge because Panton produced music with him.)
The immigration judge denied Panton’s application for deferral of removal,
concluding that Panton had not shown he was more likely than not to be tortured if
removed to Jamaica. The judge determined that Panton had not identified any
nonspeculative or specific risk of harm: He produced no evidence that gangs had any
reason to target him, particularly since he had never cooperated with the government,
and any connection to a gang was outdated and highly tenuous.
Panton appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his
appeal. The Board ruled that the immigration judge had appropriately considered the
record as a whole in concluding that Panton had not met his burden for protection
under the Convention Against Torture. This petition followed.
Analysis
To qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture, Panton needed
to show it was “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if he returned to
Jamaica. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). We review the immigration judge’s decision, as
supplemented by the Board’s decision, under the substantial evidence standard.
Cabrera-Ruiz v. Garland, 37 F.4th 395, 399 (7th Cir. 2022). We disturb findings of fact only
when any reasonable factfinder would be compelled to do so. Id.
Panton first argues that the judge and the Board misunderstood “key aspects” of
his claim. Chen v. Holder, 604 F.3d 324, 330 (7th Cir. 2010). Panton contends that the
judge overlooked his connections to known gang members, and that he was threatened
three times: when he was shot on the street, when he was nearly attacked in prison, and
one later time in prison. Such oversights, Panton insists, show that the judge failed to
comprehend the specific threat he faced from gangs in Jamaica. And the judge’s

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 21-2346 Page 4
discussion was so cursory, Panton explains, that the Board had no reason in its order
even to name the Shower Posse.
But this is too stingy a view of the judge’s decision. The judge acknowledged
Johnson’s and the cousin’s gang ties and discussed the shooting and first prison
confrontation. True, the judge did not mention the second prison confrontation, but this
was not a key aspect of Panton’s claim—he mentioned it only once briefly during his
testimony and explained that it ended without escalation. And although the Board did
not mention the Shower Posse, the judge repeatedly did, and we review the judge’s and
Board’s decisions together. See Cabrera-Ruiz, 37 F.4th at 399.
Panton extends this argument, urging that the judge ignored specific reasons the
gangs would investigate him if he returned. For instance, Panton insists that the gangs
would naturally investigate him because he has an American accent, his return would
be publicized in the press, and he would be forced to interact with gangs to access basic
resources. Panton fears that after investigating him (revealing his connections to former
gang members and that he is “law-abiding”) the gangs may not hesitate to torture him
because of their “long memories.”
The judge did not need to consider these reasons to investigate, however,
because he reasonably concluded that, even if an investigation occurred, it was unlikely
to lead to torture. The judge determined that no gang had any specific reason to target
Panton—who was never a gang member, never cooperated with the government in an
action against a gang, and was imprisoned at the time of Johnson’s murder. True,
Panton has faced retaliation (he was shot and later confronted in prison) because some
believed him to be a cooperator. But that was decades ago, so the judge’s conclusion
that this threat had abated was not unreasonable, especially given the absence of any
evidence that Panton ever cooperated.
In his reply brief, Panton adds that the judge and the Board ignored his
argument that he may be targeted by Jamaican security forces because he is a known
drug trafficker. But Panton raised that Jamaican security forces may target him only in
his brief to the Board and only in support of his argument that the government would
acquiesce to his torture. The Board fairly declined to reach that argument because,
without any likelihood of torture, government acquiescence was not at issue.
Next, Panton argues that the judge failed to consider the cumulative risks he
faced, as an immigration judge must. See Nyandwi v. Garland, 15 F.4th 836, 839 (7th Cir.
2021). But the judge did consider the risks in the aggregate, discussing the relevant facts

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 21-2346 Page 5
and concluding that “the evidence that [Panton] would actually be harmed if he
returned to Jamaica is really nonexistent.”
We therefore DENY the petition for review.

-- 5 of 5 --