INTRODUCTION

This case involves a domestic violence survivor, Gabriela Perez Cruz (“Perez”), who was denied both withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. It presents this Court with an opportunity to address how domestic violence issues can impact an applicant’s eligibility for each of these two claims for relief.

Withholding of Removal. An applicant convicted of a “particularly serious crime” is ineligible for withholding of removal. Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985, 996 (9th Cir. 2018). “[O]nly aggravated felonies for which the [applicant] was sentenced to at least five years’ imprisonment are categorically particularly serious for the purposes of withholding of removal.” Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1346 (9th Cir. 2013). The seriousness of other crimes (like the residential burglary for which Perez received a four-year prison sentence) turns on several factors. A “crime is particularly serious if [1] 5 the nature of the conviction, [2] the underlying facts and circumstances[,] and [3] the sentence imposed justify the presumption that the convicted immigrant is a danger to the community.” GomezSanchez, 892 F.3d at 991; AR 3.

Dangerousness “is the ‘essential key’ to determining whether the individual’s conviction was for a particularly serious crime.” GomezSanchez, 892 F.3d at 991. This Court recently recognized that in considering the dangerousness of an applicant, the “Agency must take all reliable, relevant information into consideration when making its determination, including the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the crime, whether it was considered during the criminal proceedings or not.” Id. at 996 (emphasis added).

As Perez argues in her opening brief, the BIA here failed to consider all evidence relevant to the circumstances at the time of the crime, including Cruz’s mental health and the duress she was under when she burglarized a residence. Pet’r Opening Br. 14–21. This case thus presents a vehicle for this Court to build upon Gomez-Sanchez by outlining factors that immigration judges should consider to determine 6 whether, and how, domestic violence issues impacted an applicant’s mental health at the time of the crime in question. See id.

Amici propose several factors for immigration judges to consider, including (1) whether a domestic violence perpetrator coerced an applicant into committing the crime at issue; (2) whether fear of retaliation, trauma, or other common outcomes of domestic violence prevented an applicant from reporting during the criminal proceedings that the crime was coerced; and (3) whether an applicant who has been subject to domestic violence may have suffered from a traumatic brain injury that impacted her mental health. See Pt. I. B. 1–3.

This Court should take the opportunity to provide further guidance now. The issues in this case are likely to recur. Exposure to trauma and domestic violence are “prevalent” among “Latina immigrants from Central America, South America, and Mexico.” E.g., Stacey Kaltman, et al., Contextualizing the Trauma Experience of Women Immigrants from Central America, South America, and Mexico, 24 J. Traumatic Stress 6, 635–42 (Dec. 2011). Guidance about which factors to consider in evaluating immigration petitions involving domestic-violence-related criminal activity would aid immigration 7 judges in assessing the availability of withholding of removal given an applicant’s mental health. See Gomez-Sanchez, 892 F.3d at 994.

CAT Relief. To obtain CAT relief, “a petitioner must show that torture would be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.’” Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 937 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)). “Relevant considerations for a CAT claim include evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant, evidence of safe internal relocation, evidence of mass violations of human rights within the country of removal, and other pertinent country conditions.” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 663 (9th Cir. 2019).

Here, substantial evidence compels the conclusion that Perez is entitled to CAT relief, as Perez argues in her opening brief. Pet’r Opening Br. 20–23. It also allows this Court to address the likelihood of torture against women in Mexico. Violence against women has existed in Mexico for decades—including after a 2009 decision by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights that found Mexico responsible for the rapes, deaths, and disappearance of women and girls in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. See González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico (Inter-Am. Ct. 8 H.R. Nov. 16, 2009) (“Cotton Field Cases”); infra Pt. II. A. Given this widespread, unchecked violence, it would be unsafe for Perez (a single mother of two who suffers from mental illness) to relocate within Mexico, where she was previously tracked down by her abuser and beaten severely with the acquiescence of Mexican police. Infra Pt. II. B

Introduction

This legal matter concerns Gabriela Perez Cruz, a survivor of domestic violence. Ms. Perez was denied two types of relief: withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This case offers the Court an opportunity to clarify how domestic violence issues should be considered when determining an individual's eligibility for these forms of relief.

Withholding of Removal

An individual found guilty of a "particularly serious crime" cannot receive withholding of removal. Only serious crimes for which an individual was sentenced to at least five years in prison are automatically considered particularly serious for this purpose. For other crimes, such as the residential burglary committed by Ms. Perez, who received a four-year sentence, the seriousness depends on several factors. These factors include the nature of the crime, the specific facts and circumstances surrounding it, and the sentence given. These elements help determine if the convicted individual poses a danger to the community.

The central point in deciding if a crime is "particularly serious" is whether the individual is considered dangerous. The Court has stated that all reliable and relevant information must be taken into account when assessing dangerousness. This includes an individual's mental state at the time of the crime, regardless of whether it was considered during the original criminal proceedings.

Ms. Perez argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not consider all relevant evidence about her circumstances at the time of the crime. This includes her mental health and the pressure she was under from domestic violence when she committed the burglary. This case provides an opportunity for the Court to expand on previous rulings. It can outline specific factors that immigration judges should consider to determine how domestic violence issues might have affected an applicant's mental health at the time of the crime.

Legal groups suggest several factors for immigration judges to consider. These include whether a domestic abuser forced the applicant to commit the crime, whether fear of retaliation or trauma prevented the applicant from revealing this coercion during criminal proceedings, and whether the applicant suffered a traumatic brain injury due to domestic violence that affected her mental health.

The Court should provide further guidance on these matters now, as these issues are likely to reoccur. Trauma and domestic violence are common among immigrant women from Central America, South America, and Mexico. Clear guidance on factors to consider when evaluating immigration requests involving domestic violence-related criminal activity would help immigration judges assess eligibility for withholding of removal, especially concerning an applicant's mental health.

CAT Relief

To qualify for CAT relief, an individual must demonstrate that torture would be inflicted by, at the request of, or with the approval of a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. When considering a CAT claim, relevant evidence includes any past torture the applicant experienced, the possibility of safely moving to a different location within the country, evidence of widespread human rights violations in the country of removal, and other relevant country conditions.

In this case, strong evidence supports the conclusion that Ms. Perez is entitled to CAT relief. This evidence also allows the Court to address the likelihood of torture against women in Mexico. Violence against women has been a problem in Mexico for many decades. This includes after a 2009 court decision found Mexico responsible for rapes, deaths, and disappearances of women and girls in Ciudad Juarez. Given this widespread and uncontrolled violence, it would be unsafe for Ms. Perez, a single mother of two who struggles with mental illness, to relocate within Mexico. She was previously tracked down by her abuser in Mexico and severely beaten, with Mexican police allowing it to happen.

Introduction

This legal case involves Gabriela Perez Cruz, a survivor of domestic violence. Ms. Perez was denied two types of legal protection: withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. The court has an opportunity to examine how domestic violence issues can affect a person's eligibility for these forms of relief.

Withholding of Removal

A person convicted of a "particularly serious crime" cannot receive withholding of removal. Generally, only serious felonies that result in a prison sentence of at least five years are considered "particularly serious." For other crimes, such as the residential burglary Ms. Perez was convicted of (for which she received a four-year sentence), the seriousness depends on several factors. These factors include the nature of the crime, the specific circumstances surrounding it, and the sentence given. These elements help determine if the convicted person poses a danger to the community.

The key factor in deciding if a crime is "particularly serious" is whether the individual is considered dangerous. Recent court decisions emphasize that when assessing a person's dangerousness, all reliable and relevant information must be considered. This includes the person's mental condition at the time of the crime, regardless of whether it was part of the original criminal proceedings.

Ms. Perez argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not consider all relevant evidence about the circumstances of her crime. This includes her mental health and the duress she experienced when she committed the burglary. This case provides an opportunity for the court to further define what immigration judges should consider regarding how domestic violence might have affected a person's mental health at the time of a crime.

Experts suggest several factors for immigration judges to consider: if a domestic violence abuser forced the applicant to commit the crime; if fear of retaliation, trauma, or other common effects of domestic violence prevented the applicant from reporting the coercion during criminal proceedings; and if the applicant, as a victim of domestic violence, might have suffered a traumatic brain injury that impacted her mental health.

The court should offer further guidance on these matters now, as these issues are likely to happen again. Trauma and domestic violence are common among Latina immigrants from Central America, South America, and Mexico. Clear guidance on factors to consider when evaluating immigration petitions involving domestic-violence-related criminal activity would help immigration judges assess eligibility for withholding of removal, especially concerning an applicant's mental health.

CAT Relief

To receive CAT relief, an applicant must show that torture would be inflicted by, at the request of, or with the agreement or inaction of a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. Important factors for a CAT claim include evidence of past torture, whether the person can safely relocate within the country, evidence of widespread human rights violations in the country of removal, and other relevant country conditions.

Significant evidence in this case supports Ms. Perez's claim for CAT relief. The case also allows the court to address the likelihood of torture against women in Mexico. Violence against women has been a problem in Mexico for decades. This includes situations documented after a 2009 international court decision that found Mexico responsible for the rapes, deaths, and disappearances of women and girls in Ciudad Juarez. Given this widespread and uncontrolled violence, it would be unsafe for Ms. Perez, a single mother of two with mental illness, to relocate within Mexico. She was previously tracked down by her abuser in Mexico and severely beaten with the implied agreement of Mexican police.

Introduction

This legal case involves Gabriela Perez Cruz, a survivor of domestic violence. Ms. Perez was denied two types of relief: withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This court has an opportunity to examine how domestic violence issues can affect a person's eligibility for these types of relief.

Withholding of Removal

A person who has been convicted of a "particularly serious crime" cannot be granted withholding of removal. Only serious crimes that resulted in a prison sentence of at least five years are always considered "particularly serious" for this purpose. For other crimes, like the residential burglary for which Ms. Perez received a four-year sentence, the seriousness depends on several factors. A crime is considered particularly serious if the type of crime, the details of what happened, and the sentence given suggest that the convicted individual is a danger to the community.

Determining whether a person is dangerous is the key to deciding if their crime was particularly serious. The court must consider all reliable and relevant information, including the person's mental state at the time of the crime, regardless of whether it was part of the original criminal case.

Ms. Perez argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not consider all relevant evidence about the circumstances at the time of her crime. This includes her mental health and the pressure she was under from domestic violence when she committed the burglary. This case offers the court a chance to provide clearer guidelines for immigration judges. These guidelines should help them determine how domestic violence issues might have affected an applicant's mental health at the time a crime was committed.

Suggestions for factors immigration judges should consider include: if a domestic violence abuser forced the applicant to commit the crime; if fear of revenge, trauma, or other common results of domestic violence prevented the applicant from reporting this coercion during the criminal proceedings; and if the applicant, due to domestic violence, might have suffered a brain injury that affected her mental health.

The court should offer more guidance now, as these issues are likely to happen again. Trauma and domestic violence are common among Latina immigrants from Central America, South America, and Mexico. Clear guidelines on how to evaluate immigration petitions involving crimes linked to domestic violence would help immigration judges assess eligibility for withholding of removal, considering the applicant's mental health.

CAT Relief

To receive CAT relief, a person must demonstrate that torture would be inflicted by, at the request of, or with the agreement of a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. Important considerations for a CAT claim include evidence of past torture against the person, whether they could safely relocate within their own country, evidence of widespread human rights violations in the country of removal, and other relevant country conditions.

Significant evidence in this case suggests that Ms. Perez should be granted CAT relief. This case also allows the court to address the likelihood of torture against women in Mexico. Violence against women in Mexico has been a problem for decades. This includes after a 2009 court decision found Mexico responsible for the rapes, deaths, and disappearances of women and girls in Ciudad Juarez. Given this widespread and uncontrolled violence, it would be unsafe for Ms. Perez—a single mother of two who has mental illness—to relocate within Mexico. In the past, her abuser tracked her down there and severely beat her, with the Mexican police ignoring the situation.

Summary

This court case is about Gabriela Perez Cruz, a woman who experienced domestic violence. She asked for two types of help to stay in the United States, but was turned down for both. This case is a chance for the court to look at how domestic violence can affect someone's ability to get this help.

Withholding of Removal

A person cannot get "withholding of removal" if they have committed a "particularly serious crime." This is especially true if the person was sentenced to five years or more in prison for a serious crime. For other crimes, like the one Ms. Perez Cruz committed (a break-in that led to a four-year sentence), the court looks at a few things. They consider the type of crime, what happened, and the prison sentence to decide if the person is a danger to the community.

Being a danger is the main thing the court looks at to decide if a crime is "particularly serious." The court must consider all reliable information, including the person's mental state when the crime happened, even if it wasn't brought up in court before.

Ms. Perez Cruz argues that the court did not look at all the facts about her mental health and how she was forced to commit the crime. This case can help the court explain what immigration judges should consider about domestic violence and how it affects someone's mental health at the time of a crime.

Some groups suggest things for judges to think about. These include: if a domestic abuser forced the person to commit the crime; if fear of danger or past harm from abuse stopped the person from telling the court about being forced; and if the person might have had a brain injury from the abuse that affected their mental health.

The court should give more guidance on this now. Problems like these happen often. Many immigrant women from Central and South America and Mexico have experienced harm and domestic violence. Clear rules about how to look at immigration requests involving crimes related to domestic violence would help judges decide if someone can get "withholding of removal," especially considering their mental health.

CAT Relief

To get "CAT relief," a person must show that they would be hurt badly by a government worker or someone acting for the government. The court looks at things like if the person has been hurt badly before, if they can move safely to another part of their home country, if many people are being hurt in their home country, and other conditions in that country.

Here, there is strong proof that Ms. Perez Cruz should get "CAT relief." This case also lets the court look at how likely it is that women in Mexico will be hurt badly. Violence against women in Mexico has been happening for many years. Even after a court case in 2009 that found Mexico responsible for harm and disappearances of women and girls, the violence continues. Because this violence is so common and unchecked, it would not be safe for Ms. Perez Cruz (a single mother of two with mental health issues) to move to another place in Mexico. Her abuser found her there before and beat her badly, and the Mexican police did not stop it.