Background
Alfredo Parada Calderon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was placed in removal proceedings in 2023 and sought protection under the Convention Against Torture. After further proceedings before an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, he petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
While that petition was pending, Parada moved to reopen the removal proceedings to present additional evidence concerning torture and prison conditions under El Salvador’s “State of Exception.” The BIA equitably tolled the filing deadline because of ineffective assistance by Parada’s attorney, and it found a reasonable likelihood that Parada could be detained as a deportee. It nevertheless denied reopening, reasoning in part that disturbing anecdotes could not substitute for “quantitative evidence” of torture and concluding that Parada had not established prima facie eligibility for CAT relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit granted Parada’s petition for review. The majority held that the BIA committed legal error by treating quantitative or statistical evidence as a requirement for CAT protection. The governing regulations instead require consideration of all evidence relevant to possible future torture and a holistic, individualized assessment of whether the applicant is more likely than not to be tortured.
The court also held that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to Parada’s three expert reports, entirely omitting discussion of two and dismissing the third for lacking quantitative evidence. Considering the new expert and country-conditions evidence together with Parada’s criminal history, gang associations, and tattoos, the court concluded that the record compelled a finding that he had a reasonable likelihood of proving entitlement to CAT protection in reopened proceedings. It remanded with instructions that the BIA grant the motion to reopen. Judge Bea dissented, arguing that the BIA had properly followed circuit precedent, adequately considered the evidence, and reasonably found that Parada had not established prima facie eligibility.
Key Takeaways
- CAT applicants need not produce statistical or numerical proof quantifying their likelihood of torture.
- The BIA must consider all relevant evidence and give reasoned consideration to potentially dispositive expert reports.
- The prima facie standard for reopening requires a reasonable likelihood of success, not proof that the applicant is more likely than not to prevail in the reopened proceeding.
Why It Matters
The decision rejects an evidentiary rule that could make CAT protection practically unavailable when abusive governments suppress reliable data about torture. Immigration adjudicators must evaluate qualitative evidence, expert analysis, country conditions, and an applicant’s individual risk factors together rather than demanding statistics that may not exist.
The ruling also reinforces meaningful judicial review of BIA decisions involving substantial expert evidence. When the record compels prima facie eligibility, the Ninth Circuit may direct the agency to reopen proceedings rather than merely ask it to reconsider the motion.