Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tort
tortwillparole

Related Cases

Ni v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Pergega v. Gonzales
View Case »
Sankarapillai v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Roy v. U.S.
View Case »
Ampadu v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pieschacon-Villegas v. AG

Facts

Pieschacon-Villegas, a Colombian native, was involved in money laundering for Colombian drug traffickers and cooperated with the FBI from 2003 to 2007. After returning to Colombia, he was arrested and jailed, where he feared for his life due to threats from the AUC, a paramilitary group. He testified that the Colombian government was aware of his cooperation with the FBI and that his life was in danger upon his return to Colombia.

Pieschacon-Villegas was born in 1969 and is a Colombian native and citizen. He has entered and left the United States on a number of occasions. Pieschacon-Villegas last entered the United States as a special parolee in December 2007. From 1996 until 2003, Pieschacon-Villegas received fees for laundering Colombian drug traffickers' money.

Issue

Did the BIA apply the correct legal standard in determining whether Pieschacon-Villegas would likely be tortured upon removal to Colombia?

Did the BIA apply the correct legal standard in determining whether torture would be inflicted with the acquiescence of the Colombian government?

Rule

An applicant for relief under Article 3 of CAT bears the burden of establishing that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal, which includes showing that such acts would be inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a public official.

An applicant for relief under Article 3 of CAT 'bears the burden of establishing 'that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.'

Analysis

The court found that the BIA misapplied the legal standard by ignoring evidence relevant to whether Pieschacon-Villegas would more likely than not be subjected to torture upon removal. The BIA incorrectly stated that certain circumstances could not constitute acquiescence and failed to consider the possibility of governmental acquiescence even if the government was unable to control the entities engaging in torture.

The BIA incorrectly stated that a number of specific circumstances could not constitute acquiescence. Furthermore, the BIA misapplied the legal standard by ignoring evidence relevant to determining whether Pieschacon-Villegas will more likely than not be subjected to torture upon removal.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings, emphasizing that the BIA must consider all relevant evidence regarding the risk of torture.

We will grant the petition and remand to the BIA.

Who won?

Pieschacon-Villegas prevailed because the court found that the BIA had not properly considered the evidence and had applied an incorrect legal standard regarding acquiescence.

Pieschacon-Villegas prevailed because the court found that the BIA had not properly considered the evidence and had applied an incorrect legal standard regarding acquiescence.

You must be