Marcia Barbara Campbell v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCIA BARBARA CAMPBELL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72309
Agency No. A039-745-976
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 7, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, GILMAN *** , and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Marcia Campbell petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) opinion affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) opinion denying her
deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
MAY 16 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).
*** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review.
Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it
here.
I
Contrary to Campbell’s assertion, the BIA did not ignore her argument that
she would be targeted by law enforcement in Jamaica because of her status as a
criminal deportee from the United States. The BIA adopted the IJ’s decision and
reasoning when it agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Campbell failed to meet her
burden under CAT. Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasoning
that the BIA’s statement that it agrees with the IJ’s conclusion “would seem to
indicate that the BIA primarily adopted the IJ’s more extensive analysis”).
The BIA’s general agreement with the conclusion of the IJ and its usage of
much of the IJ’s reasoning constitutes an adoption of the IJ’s more extensive
analysis of Campbell’s criminal deportee argument. Therefore, remand is not
required.
II
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Campbell did not
satisfy her burden of proof under CAT. The CAT requires a petitioner to
“establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed
2

-- 2 of 4 --

to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also id. §
1208.18(a)(1) (defining torture under CAT). In addition, a CAT petitioner must
show “that someone—either a government official or private actor—specifically
intended to torture him or her.” Eneh, 601 F.3d at 948.
Campbell did not establish that it was more likely than not that she would
return to prison if removed to Jamaica, and substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that she has not shown that the Jamaican government or its agents are
more likely than not to act with specific intent to torture her if she were
imprisoned. As the BIA points out, Campbell was not tortured when she last
served time in a Jamaican prison. In addition, the 2006 U.S. State Department
human rights assessment of Jamaica reports that, while prison abuse still occurs,
the Jamaican government continues to work to improve conditions and stop
physical and mental abuse. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S.
Dep’t of State, Jamaica Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (2006). The
report undercuts Campbell’s theory that the Jamaican government has a specific
intent to torture prisoners. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir.
2008) (considering and rejecting a similar theory concerning poor prison
conditions for mental patients in Mexico when government was trying to improve
conditions). Finally, the BIA did not err in concluding that Campbell’s string of
3

-- 3 of 4 --

speculative inferences—namely, that once she returned to Jamaica she would begin
abusing drugs, which would lead her into prostitution, which would lead to her
incarceration, which would lead to torture at the hands of Jamaican prison
guards—failed to satisfy the more-likely-than-not CAT standard.
Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Campbell
did not satisfy her burden of proof, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --