Davila v. Barr, No. 17-72173 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner alleged that she suffered frequent and severe abuse at the hands of her domestic partner in Nicaragua and that Nicaraguan police officers accepted a bribe from her domestic partner and failed to protect her from him.
The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA's determination that petitioner had not shown that the Nicaraguan government was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution. In this case, the BIA erred by faulting petitioner for failing to contact the police again and for failing to report the bribe, and by disregarding petitioner's credible testimony about why she did not report subsequent abuse. Furthermore, the BIA did not address whether petitioner belonged to a cognizable particular social group, was persecuted on account of her membership in that social group, or had a well-founded fear of future persecution. The panel also held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA's determination that petitioner had failed to show that the Nicaraguan government consented to or acquiesced in her torture for the purpose of CAT relief. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Immigration. Granting Carla Patricia Davila’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Davila failed to establish that the Nicaraguan government was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution by her domestic partner, or that a public official acting under the color of law had acquiesced to her torture. Davila reported her partner’s abuse to police, who took no action after her partner paid the officers a bribe. The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Davila failed to establish that the Nicaraguan government was unwilling or unable to protect her from persecution. The panel concluded that the Board erred by requiring Davila to report her abuse again, without considering her reasons for failing to do so, and by faulting her for failing to report the officers’ acceptance of the bribe. The panel also concluded that the Board erred by selectively considering country conditions evidence indicating that the Nicaraguan government was making positive strides in combating domestic violence and rape, while failing to take into account other evidence regarding the government’s failure to enforce, or lack of effective enforcement of, laws DAVILA V. BARR 3 criminalizing rape and domestic violence. The panel observed that the Board did not address whether Davila belonged to a cognizable particular social group, was persecuted on account of her membership in that social group, or had a well-founded fear of future persecution. The panel therefore remanded for the Board to consider those issues in the first instance. For similar reasons, the panel also held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Davila failed to establish sufficient state action, or government consent or acquiescence, in any torture. The panel remanded for the Board to consider in the first instance whether Davila’s abuse rose to the level of torture, and whether it is more likely than not that she would be tortured upon removal to Nicaragua.
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.