German Ruvalcaba-Rosales v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERMAN RUVALCABA-ROSALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71405
Agency No. A098-854-061
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 6, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, Senior
District Judge. **
German Ruvalcaba-Rosales appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review
FILED
JUN 20 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 Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, Senior District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Regalado-Escobar v. Holder,
717 F.3d 724, 726-27 (9th Cir. 2013), and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition with respect to Ruvalcaba’s withholding of
removal claim and remand his CAT claim for further review.
The evidence presented by Ruvalcaba is not sufficient to compel the
conclusion that his political opinion was a central reason for the mistreatment he
suffered in Mexico. Ruvalcaba was beaten after he returned to the property that
had previously been confiscated by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD)
Committee and that “was still undergoing some kind of legal process.” Significant
to the BIA was the fact that the PRD Committee took the land of 25 other
landowners at the same time, yet Ruvalcaba failed to present any evidence
regarding the political affiliation of these other landowners. Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that Ruvalcaba was threatened and beaten as a
result of a land dispute between his father and the government, and not because of
his political opinion.
Further, the record does not compel a finding that it is “more likely than not”
that Ruvalcaba would be persecuted if he is returned to Mexico. The BIA noted
the amount of time that had elapsed since Ruvalcaba’s mistreatment and took
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

administrative notice of the fact that since his mistreatment, Ruvalcaba’s political
party, National Action Party (PAN), had, at least temporarily, assumed power. As
such, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ruvalcaba did not
show that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted upon his return
to Mexico, and the petition for review as to the withholding of removal claim is
denied.
Finally, both the IJ and the BIA failed to consider evidence of country
conditions, specifically the country reports, when they determined that Ruvalcaba
was ineligible for CAT relief. Because “failure . . . to consider evidence of country
conditions constitutes reversible error,” we grant the petition for review as to
Ruvalcaba’s application for CAT relief and remand to the BIA with instructions to
reconsider Ruvalcaba’s CAT claim in light of the country conditions in Mexico
and state its conclusions in the record. Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701,
705 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND
REMANDED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --