AURELIO RUBEN-BULGIN, AKA Ruben Bulgin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AURELIO RUBEN-BULGIN, AKA Ruben
Bulgin,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72068
Agency No. A203-072-926
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 16, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District Judge.
Ruben Aurelio Bulgin, a citizen of Panama, petitions for review of a decision
by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying him deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the petition and remand for further proceedings.
The government asks us to remand because the record is not clear whether the
agency considered petitioner’s sister’s declaration and so, on remand, the BIA “can
specifically assess the validity of the declaration and decide the proper weight to
give it.” Per the government, remand would allow the BIA to “give reasoned
consideration to that evidence.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011).
The government also concedes that the agency erred by requiring petitioner to show
that any torture by individual police officers would have been with the acquiescence
of other public officials, which is contrary to our case law. Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr,
962 F.3d 1175, 1184 (9th Cir. 2020).
We grant the government’s request to remand to the BIA for further
consideration. Petitioner’s arguments against remand are unpersuasive. Remand is
appropriate so that “[t]he agency can bring its expertise to bear upon the matter; it
can evaluate the evidence; it can make an initial determination; and, in doing so, it
can, through informed discussion and analysis, help a court later determine whether
its decision exceeds the leeway that the law provides.” INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537
U.S. 12, 17 (2002) (per curiam). Indeed, we have often remanded in similar
circumstances. See Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 916 (9th Cir. 2018); Owino
v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 538 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --