Reported / Citable
Background
Alfredo Parada Calderon sought to reopen removal proceedings based on evidence that he would likely be detained and tortured if returned to El Salvador during the country’s State of Exception. His evidence included expert reports describing prison conditions and widespread abuse, together with individualized risk factors such as his criminal history, tattoos, and past gang associations.
The Board of Immigration Appeals accepted that Parada was reasonably likely to be detained as a deportee but discounted evidence of brutal conditions as anecdotal. It said disturbing examples could not substitute for quantitative evidence and rejected the motion to reopen his claim under the Convention Against Torture, which protects a person who is more likely than not to face torture with government involvement or acquiescence.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit granted review. The Convention’s regulations require consideration of all evidence relevant to possible future torture; they do not impose a separate statistical or quantitative-proof requirement. Demanding reliable numerical data about torture inside Salvadoran prisons would create a nearly insurmountable burden because such conduct is secretive and trustworthy statistics may not exist.
The Board also failed to give reasoned consideration to Parada’s expert evidence. It did not discuss two reports and rejected the third largely because it lacked the statistical proof the Board mistakenly believed was required. Qualitative expert analysis, documented examples, country conditions, and evidence particular to the applicant must be assessed together.
The existing record compelled the conclusion that Parada showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing eligibility if proceedings reopened. It documented government-perpetrated or tolerated beatings, starvation, electric shocks, sexual assault, denial of medical care, and killings in detention, while his personal characteristics increased the danger. The panel ordered the Board to grant reopening. Judge Bea dissented, arguing that the Board had followed circuit precedent and adequately considered the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A Convention Against Torture claim does not require statistics proving that torture occurs at a particular numerical rate.
- Expert reports and qualitative country-conditions evidence must receive reasoned consideration rather than dismissal as anecdotal.
- A reopening motion asks whether there is a reasonable likelihood of eligibility, not whether the applicant has already proved the ultimate claim.
- Practitioners should connect general detention conditions to individualized traits that make the client especially likely to be detained and abused.
Why It Matters
The precedential ruling removes an evidentiary obstacle that can be impossible to satisfy in countries where abuse is hidden or records are unreliable. California immigration counsel can rely on carefully supported expert and country-condition evidence without manufacturing false numerical precision, while still tying that material closely to the client’s own risk profile.