Vitug v. Holder, No. 07-74754 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a 37-year-old gay native and citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of the BIA's order vacating an IJ's grant of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. The court concluded that the BIA failed to apply the clear standard of review to the IJ's factual findings, and also abused its discretion by ignoring factual findings of the IJ. The court granted the petition for review as to the application for withholding of removal where no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the harm petitioner suffered on account of his sexual orientation did not rise to the level of persecution in light of the cumulative effect of multiple instances of physical harm and victimization. The court, however, denied the petition for review of the BIA's denial of CAT relief where it was unclear that petitioner's beatings and economic deprivation rose to the level of torture.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted in part a petition for review because the Board of Immigration Appeals violated its factfinding authority in reversing an immigration judge’s grant of withholding of removal to a homosexual native and citizen of the Philippines. The panel held that the Board erred by engaging in its own factfinding, rather than clear error review, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), when it determined that the harm petitioner suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution, and that the Philippine government was not unwilling or unable to protect petitioner. The panel further held that the Board abused its discretion by ignoring evidence. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of torture, but it remanded for the Board to grant withholding of removal because no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the harm petitioner suffered did not rise to the level of persecution, and the government failed to meet its burden of proof to show changed country conditions such that petitioner no longer faces a threat to his life or freedom in the Philippines.
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.