Rodriguez-Jimenez v. Garland, No. 21-70064 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review, concluding that the BIA sufficiently considered the evidence relevant to petitioner's claim of future torture and announced its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted to petitioner's claims. The panel explained that this is all that is required; the agency need not provide a detailed explanation of every argument or piece of evidence in its decision. The panel also concluded that petitioner's due process claim fails for lack of prejudice because substantial evidence supports the BIA's rejection of his Convention Against Torture claim, irrespective of any testimonial inconsistencies.
Court Description: Immigration. Denying Jose Alfredo Rodriguez-Jimenez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that (1) the Board and the Immigration Judge (collectively, agency) sufficiently considered Rodriguez- Jimenez’s claim for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and provided an adequate rationale for rejecting that claim; and (2) because substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT protection, Rodriguez-Jimenez failed to establish that any alleged due process violation caused him prejudice. Rodriguez-Jimenez claimed that the Board did not sufficiently consider the evidence relevant to his claim of future torture. Reviewing both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions, the panel concluded that the record demonstrated that the agency considered the relevant evidence and announced its decisions in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that the agency had heard and thought and not merely reacted to Rodriguez-Jimenez’s claims. The panel wrote that this is all that is required; the agency need not provide a detailed explanation of every argument or piece of evidence in its decision. Rodriguez-Jimenez next argued that the Board violated his right to due process by not providing him an opportunity to provide additional corroborating evidence or explain his testimonial inconsistencies. The panel concluded that this RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ V. GARLAND 3 claim failed for lack of prejudice because substantial evidence supported the Board’s rejection of his CAT claim, irrespective of any testimonial inconsistencies. The panel explained that although Rodriguez-Jimenez argued that some local police have acquiesced to threats of narco- trafficking violence, he failed to provide any evidence beyond his own personal speculation that he would face such acquiescence—particularly since he did not dispute that the police responded to the incidents that form the basis of his claim for relief.
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.