Victor Paredes Gonzales v. Merrick B. Garland, No. 20-2964 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioners, three brothers who are Bolivian citizens, came to the United States on temporary visas in 2015. Petitioners claim they fled Bolivia because investors in their business, many of whom were retired military and government officials, were unhappy with the lack of returns and threatened Petitioners. Petitioners also faced fraud charges in Bolivia. Based on these charges, Interpol issued Red Notices seeking Petitioners’ arrest.
Upon the expiration of their temporary visas, Petitioners sought asylum in the United States. The immigration judge denied Petitioners’ claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and Protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Pertaining to Petitioner’s CAT claims, the immigration judge found that Petitioners had not shown it was more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Bolivia. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
The Eighth Circuit denied relief. The immigration judge’s adverse credibility determinations were supported by the record and thus, entitled to deference. Additionally, Petitioners’ evidence suggesting they would be tortured if returned to Bolivia was based on “abusive or squalid conditions in pretrial detention facilities or prisons that result from a lack of resources rather than a specific intent to cause severe pain or suffering.” These conditions, the court held, failed to rise to the level of torture.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Interpol's action in rescinding the Red Notices issued on petitioners did not require a remand to the agency as the decision did not offer an opinion on the merits of the Bolivian criminal proceedings against them nor was the existence of the Red Notices a material factor in the IJ's decision to deny their CAT claim; the action is, in any event, immaterial to the issue presented here which is whether it is more likely than not that petitioners would be subject to torture if returned to Bolivia; the agency's adverse credibility determination is affirmed as it was supported by substantial evidence and specific, cogent reasons to disbelieve petitioners' evidence; the agency applied the correct standard - whether it was more likely than not - in evaluating petitioners' claims they would be tortured if returned to Bolivia.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.