In a significant ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Alfredo Parada Calderon’s petition for review, affecting his immigration status and potential deportation to El Salvador. The court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) made errors in denying Calderon’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings, which aimed to present new evidence for his claim of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This decision is crucial for Calderon, who fears for his safety if returned to his home country, where he could face torture.
The case, officially known as Parada Calderon v. Blanche, was filed on August 28, 2026, under docket number 25-2204. It highlights the complexities of immigration law, particularly regarding the treatment of individuals seeking asylum and protection from torture. The ruling underscores the importance of considering all evidence when evaluating claims for protection, especially in cases involving potential human rights abuses.
Calderon, a native of El Salvador, was placed in removal proceedings in 2023 after his application for asylum and protection under CAT was denied by an Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ's decision was based on a lack of sufficient evidence to support Calderon’s claims of potential torture upon return to El Salvador. After appealing to the BIA, Calderon sought to reopen his case to submit additional evidence regarding the deteriorating human rights conditions in his home country.
The BIA initially denied Calderon’s appeal, stating that he had not provided enough new evidence to warrant reopening his case. However, Calderon argued that recent developments in El Salvador, particularly the government’s crackdown on civil liberties, warranted a reevaluation of his situation. He contended that the BIA had incorrectly applied a “quantitative evidence” requirement, which he claimed was not consistent with the legal standards for CAT protection.
The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with Calderon’s arguments, stating that the BIA had erred in its assessment. The court noted that the BIA had dismissed Calderon’s expert reports and other evidence, claiming that anecdotal evidence could not substitute for quantitative data. The court emphasized that the BIA’s requirement for statistical evidence was a misinterpretation of the CAT regulations, which mandate consideration of all relevant evidence regarding the possibility of future torture.
The court ruled, “The BIA’s disregard of the unambiguous language of the regulations imposed a nearly insurmountable burden on Parada by requiring him to produce statistics of torture in El Salvador that likely do not exist or, if any do exist, are likely unreliable.”
The court further stated that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to Calderon’s expert reports, which detailed the conditions in Salvadoran prisons and the risks he would face if returned. The ruling highlighted that Calderon had established a reasonable likelihood of success in a reopened proceeding, given the evidence of widespread torture and abuse in El Salvador.
This ruling has significant implications for Calderon and others in similar situations. It reinforces the need for immigration courts to consider the totality of evidence when evaluating claims for protection under CAT. The decision also addresses a troubling trend in immigration adjudications, where courts have increasingly demanded quantitative proof of torture, which is often unavailable or unreliable in repressive regimes.
Looking ahead, the ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving CAT claims, particularly for individuals from countries with documented human rights abuses. The court’s decision emphasizes that the burden of proof should not be unreasonably high, especially when dealing with cases involving potential torture, where evidence is often difficult to obtain.
As for Calderon, the Ninth Circuit has remanded the case to the BIA with instructions to grant his motion to reopen. This means that Calderon will have another opportunity to present his case and the new evidence he has gathered regarding the risks he faces in El Salvador. The BIA will be required to reconsider his application for protection under CAT without imposing the erroneous quantitative evidence requirement.
While Calderon’s immediate future remains uncertain, this ruling represents a crucial victory for him and potentially many others facing similar circumstances. It serves as a reminder of the importance of fair and just treatment in immigration proceedings, particularly for those seeking refuge from persecution and torture.