Caballero-Vega v. Garland ( 2023 )

Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2023
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
GERARDO CABALLERO-VEGA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 21-9506
(Petition for Review)
MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, and EBEL and EID, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Gerardo Caballero-Vega,1 a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in 1993
without admission or parole by an immigration officer when he was eight years old.
He was removed to Mexico in 2019. Shortly after his removal, Caballero-Vega
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument.
1
Caballero-Vega’s last name is often misspelled as “Cabellero-Vega”
throughout this litigation, including in the caption on appeal. We use the correct
spelling in this order and judgment and direct the Clerk’s Office to correct the case
caption as well.
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 2
returned to the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Later that year, the Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) granted his application for asylum, which the Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”) appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the BIA”). In
2020, the BIA vacated the IJ’s decision for clear error and ordered Caballero-Vega’s
removal to Mexico. The following year, Caballero-Vega filed a petition for review in
this court. We reverse the BIA’s vacation of the IJ’s decision and remand the case
for further review.
I.
Eight years after Caballero-Vega entered the United States, the San Francisco
Immigration Court granted him the opportunity to depart the country voluntarily by
2005. However, Caballero-Vega remained in the United States, and the grant became
a final order of removal.
Caballero-Vega became a criminal informant for the San Mateo County
District Attorney in 2012. He reported to law enforcement on the drug, firearm, and
human trafficking conducted by Nuestra Familia, a California prison gang, as well as
the Norteño Gang, Nuestra Familia’s “foot soldiers” in the streets. R. Vol. I at 143.
Following his informant work, he testified against Nuestra Familia members in
criminal court. Caballero-Vega was placed in a witness protection program during
and after his testimony.
In January 2019, following his arrest in Colorado, Caballero-Vega was taken
into immigration custody and removed to Mexico. On the day of his arrival, eight
2
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 3
armed men dressed in military clothing bearing the initials of the Cartel Jalisco
Nueva Generación cartel (“CJNG”) approached him in the street. They “demanded
[his] identification paperwork, took pictures of his repatriation certificate,
and . . . told [him] they would be back for him in the morning.” Id. at 72. Caballero-
Vega escaped and took a bus to Tijuana, Mexico, where he was again approached by
eight men dressed in CJNG clothing. They “pushed [him] to the wall, asked who he
was, and whether he was seeking asylum in the United States,” before taking pictures
of his repatriation certificate. Id. at 73. However, Caballero-Vega was able to
escape again.
Caballero-Vega reentered the United States two months after leaving,
presenting himself at a port of entry to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Caballero-Vega alleged past
persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his membership in
particular social groups consisting of “informants who have testified in court against
gangs” and “witnesses who have testified against gangs and come to the attention of
the group they testified against.” Id. at 3 (quotation marks omitted).
On November 13, 2019, the IJ granted Caballero-Vega’s application for
asylum, finding that he had established a well-founded fear of future persecution
based on his membership in the group of “informants who have testified in court
against gangs.” Id. at 90. In reaching that conclusion, the IJ determined that “the
evidence of the cooperation between the Norteño gang and Mexican cartels [is]
3
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 4
sufficient to establish the gang and cartel would be motivated to harm [Caballero-
Vega] on account of being an informant and witness.” Id. at 93.
DHS appealed the decision to the BIA. On December 15, 2020, the BIA
sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the IJ’s grant of Caballero-Vega’s asylum, and
ordered Caballero-Vega’s removal to Mexico. Specifically, the BIA found that there
was “clear error in the [IJ]’s finding that there’s a reasonable possibility that
[Caballero-Vega’s] 2012 status as an informant and his 2013 or 2014 United States
testimony against United States gang members will be a central reason for possible
future harm to [him] upon removal to Mexico.” Id. at 4. The BIA maintained that
“the [IJ’s] findings are speculative that [Caballero-Vega]—who was not threatened or
harmed in the roughly seven years following his time as an informant and after
having given testimony against United States gang members—would be persecuted
by Mexican cartel members because he was an informant who testified against
United States gang members.” Id.
Caballero-Vega timely filed a petition for review in this court on January 14,
2021.
II.
We review the BIA’s “legal determinations de novo, and its findings of fact
under a substantial-evidence standard.” Niang v. Gonzalez, 422 F.3d 1187, 1196
(10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), the BIA
may not engage in “de novo review of findings of fact determined by an [IJ],” but
must review facts determined by the IJ for clear error. We have determined that
4
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 5
under the “rare circumstance[] . . . where an IJ makes factual credibility
determinations which the BIA in turn rejects,” we consider “de novo whether the
BIA, in making its own factual findings, actually reviewed the IJ’s decision only for
clear error.” Kabba v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1239, 1245 (10th Cir. 2008).
III.
As a threshold matter, we first address the government’s argument that we may
not review Caballero-Vega’s claim that the BIA exceeded the scope of its authority
because he failed to initially present this claim to the BIA. The government provides
scarce support for or explanation of this contention. We understand the government
to be arguing that, on appeal, Caballero-Vega has challenged the standard of review
actually applied by the BIA and, because he never presented this issue in a petition
for rehearing or request for reconsideration with the BIA, it has not been preserved
for our review.
We acknowledge that “[t]he failure to raise an issue on appeal to the BIA
constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to that question
and deprives the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Rivera-Zurita
v. I.N.S., 946 F.2d 118, 120 n.2 (10th Cir. 1991). Indeed, as we have previously held,
the exhaustion requirement is derived from “a fundamental principle of
administrative law that an agency must have the opportunity to rule on a challenger’s
arguments before the challenger may bring those arguments to court.” Garcia-
Carbajal v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1233, 1237 (10th Cir. 2010).
5
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 6
The government cites Sidabutar v. Gonzales to support its argument that
Caballero-Vega’s failure to raise his claim to the BIA about the scope of its authority
renders that claim unreviewable before us. See Resp’t Br. at 34 (citing Sidabutar v.
Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding petitioner’s claim that the
BIA exceeded scope of appellate review “should have been brought before the BIA in
the first instance through a motion to reconsider or reopen” and, because it wasn’t,
“the petitioners[] failed to exhaust administrative remedies” on it)). Although the
government’s characterization of Sidabutar is accurate, its application of Sidabutar
to this case is not. Sidabutar’s appeal to the BIA challenged the IJ’s finding that he
was “ineligible for asylum based on [his] failure to comply with the application’s
one-year filing deadline.” Sidabutar, 503 F.3d at 1119. But, before this Court, he
argued that the BIA had “improperly engaged in de novo factfinding in concluding
[that he] did not suffer ‘past persecution’ for purposes of seeking a restriction on
removal.” Id. at 1118. As Caballero-Vega correctly notes, whereas Sidabutar
provided the BIA “no opportunity to address” the issue of its alleged de novo
factfinding, Reply Br. at 2, he “has advanced the same legal theory throughout these
proceedings,” id. at 3.
Before the BIA, Caballero-Vega contended that the IJ’s factual findings “are
not ‘clearly erroneous’ simply because . . . [DHS] endorses a different view of the
evidence.” R. Vol. I at 11 (citations omitted). On appeal, his argument is the same:
“Did the [BIA] . . . correctly apply the clear error standard where it reversed the
Immigration Court’s nexus finding because the [BIA] endorsed a different
6
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 7
interpretation of the evidence in the record?” Pet. Br. at 11. Caballero-Vega accuses
the BIA of having “engaged in de novo reweighing of the evidence,” id. at 17, but he
has presented this as a criticism of the BIA’s clear-error analysis, not an allegation
that the wrong standard of review was used.
If Caballero-Vega were arguing that the BIA applied de novo review where
only clear-error review was appropriate, our case law indicates he would have had to
raise that issue to the BIA before we could hear it. However, Caballero-Vega is not
alleging that the BIA used the wrong standard, but rather, that it wrongly concluded
that the IJ clearly erred when it found that Caballero-Vega would face a reasonable
possibility of future harm if he were removed to Mexico. Caballero-Vega’s reference
to “de novo reweighing” provides an example of what he views as the BIA’s
misapplication of the clear-error standard; it is not an assertion that the BIA applied a
new and erroneous standard of review. See Kabba, 530 F.3d at 1244 (reviewing
petitioner’s argument that the BIA “committed legal error by analyzing the IJ’s
credibility determination de novo, rather than under the required clearly erroneous
standard” without requiring a petition for rehearing or request for reconsideration).
His brief clearly asserts the former argument. See, e.g., Pet. Br. at 16–21
(analogizing to a Supreme Court case about whether a circuit court “properly applied
the clearly erroneous standard of review to a petitioner’s sex discrimination claim”).
Caballero-Vega’s argument that the BIA reached an erroneous conclusion using the
clear-error standard of review was made before the BIA and need not have been
7
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 8
presented in a petition for rehearing or request for reconsideration for us to hear it on
appeal.2
IV.
Having established that we may properly review Caballero-Vega’s claim that
the BIA exceeded the scope of its authority, we now consider the merits of the claim.
Because Caballero-Vega claims that the BIA improperly rejected the IJ’s factual
findings, we review the BIA’s decision de novo. See Kabba, 530 F.3d at 1245. This
means that we must evaluate whether the BIA has sufficiently justified its finding
that the IJ’s decision is clearly erroneous. See id. at 1245–49 (reviewing the BIA’s
2
The dissent argues that Caballero-Vega “never gave the BIA an opportunity
to address” his claim that it incorrectly concluded that the IJ’s factual findings were
clearly erroneous; as a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Caballero-
Vega’s claim. Diss. op. at 1. However, there is a key distinction between this case
and those cited by the dissent in which this Court found that it did not have
jurisdiction because of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In this case,
Caballero-Vega presented the same legal theory before the BIA that he makes before
this Court—that the IJ’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. That is not true
of the relevant cases the dissent cites. See Garcia-Carbajal, 625 F.3d at 1237–38
(“The only question [Garcia-Carbajal] presented for decision to the BIA was whether
the immigration judge ‘failed to engage in the [two step] analysis described in the
BIA decision in Silva-Trevino.’ . . . Before us, he has abandoned this particular legal
theory entirely. Instead of challenging the process by which his case was analyzed,
he now seeks to challenge the substance of the results it reached.” (emphasis in
original) (citation omitted)); Sidabutar, 503 F.3d at 1118, 1122 (“On appeal to the
BIA, Sidabutar . . . argued that the IJ erred in concluding [he was] ineligible for
asylum based on [his] failure to comply with the application’s one-year filing
deadline,” but before this Court, Sidabutar made a “procedural challenge to the
BIA’s . . . finding that he failed to establish (1) past persecution, and (2) the
unreasonableness of relocation to another part of Indonesia where the IJ made no
such finding in the first instance.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The dissent
would have Caballero-Vega ask the BIA to decide whether it conducted its own
clear-error review correctly, but that is not required by Sidabutar or Garcia-
Carbajal.
8
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 9
justifications for its finding and concluding that those justifications were clearly
erroneous); see also Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016) (“[D]e novo
review does not mean that we can redetermine de novo whether we think the IJ has
committed clear error. It means that we must determine whether the BIA has
provided sufficient justification for its conclusion that the IJ has committed clear
error. It also means that we must make sure that the BIA has not violated the
prohibition against making its own findings of fact.”)
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1), the Attorney General has the discretion to grant
asylum to “refugees.” A “refugee” includes a noncitizen who is “unable or unwilling
to return to” his country “because of . . . a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of . . . membership in a particular social group.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
“[P]ersecution may be inflicted by the government itself, or by a non-governmental
group that ‘the government is unwilling or unable to control.’” Wiransane v.
Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 889, 893 (10th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
For a fear of persecution to be well-founded, there must be “‘a reasonable
possibility’ that the alien would be persecuted upon removal to his country of
nationality.” Jin Bin Wu v. Holder, 481 F. App’x 427, 429 (10th Cir. 2012)
(unpublished)3 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)). Even a ten percent chance of
being persecuted may be sufficient to satisfy this standard. See I.N.S. v. Cardoza-
Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987). However, because the well-founded fear of
3
“Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but may be cited for their
persuasive value.” 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (2023).
9
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 10
persecution must be “on account of” membership in a particular social group, a
petitioner must show the nexus between the harm the petitioner fears and his
particular social group. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Whether such a nexus exists is a
question of fact.
The IJ’s analysis of the nexus between the harm Caballero-Vega fears and his
particular social group is based on a substantial amount of evidence, including: a
phone call from the Norteño gang members’ attorney telling Caballero-Vega that “he
had placed the . . . leaders of the Norteño gang . . . in a large amount of trouble,” R.
Vol. I at 92; the testimony of a former Senior Inspector with the San Mateo County
District Attorney, who explained that Caballero-Vega “is still at risk from retaliation
from . . . the Norteño gang as a whole,” id.; opinions from U.S. law enforcement
officials and gang experts indicating that “Mexican cartels . . . cooperate[] with the
Norteño gang in exchanging intelligence, controlled substances, and weapons,” id.;
an official report from the California Attorney General finding that “California has
seen increasing partnerships between transnational cartels and prison gangs,” id. at
92–93; opinions from experts who “have classified th[e] cooperation between the
cartels and American gangs as part of a criminal organization that all agree to help
each other,” and have further indicated that this cooperation “does not stop at simply
the exchange of information,” id. at 93; and “evidence that cartels beat and killed
individuals associated with witnesses or cooperators with the government . . . [and]
the Mexican government did next to nothing to investigate the crimes,” id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). Based on this evidence, the IJ concluded that
10
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 11
it was reasonable for Caballero-Vega to fear that Mexican cartels would harm him if
they discovered he had testified against Norteño gang members. See id.The BIA’s review of the IJ’s nexus finding is not substantiated nearly as well.
The BIA notes that Caballero-Vega was not threatened or harmed when he was
stopped in Mexico. See id. at 4. It observes that Caballero-Vega was also not
“threatened or harmed in the roughly seven years following his time as an informant
and after having given testimony against United States gang members.” Id. Finally,
it reasons that the IJ’s “findings are speculative that [Caballero-Vega] . . . would be
persecuted by Mexican cartel members because he was an informant who testified
against United States gang members.” Id.We find insufficient the BIA’s explanation for its finding that the IJ’s decision
is clearly erroneous. The fact that Caballero-Vega was not persecuted in Mexico is
of little-to-no probative value here because he escaped before he could be identified
by cartel members. Likewise, the fact that he was not threatened or harmed in the
United States following his time as an informant is unhelpful because he was in
witness protection for that entire period. Finally, the expert testimony cited by the IJ
demonstrates that Mexican cartel members and United States gang members
cooperate extensively, so the fact that Caballero-Vega testified against individuals
based in the United States, not Mexico, is not dispositive. Thus, none of the reasons
the BIA offers for vacating the IJ’s decision justifies the BIA’s finding of clear error.
We remand Caballero-Vega’s case to the BIA to accept the IJ’s decision or to
provide further justification for its finding that the IJ’s decision is clearly erroneous.
11
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 12
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the judgment of the BIA of
Immigration Appeals and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Entered for the Court
Allison H. Eid
Circuit Judge
12
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 13
21-9506, Caballero-Vega v. Garland
HOLMES, C.J., Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Even if we assume—as the majority would have it—that
Petitioner’s argument complaining about the BIA’s alleged de novo reweighing of the
evidence amounts to no more than an attack on the BIA’s application of the clear-error
standard, rather than an argument that the BIA erred by applying a different standard of
review altogether (i.e., de novo review), see Maj. Op. at 7, it is plain that Petitioner never
gave the BIA an opportunity to address this attack, upon which he relies in seeking
reversal. Contrary to the suggestion of the majority in footnote 2, Petitioner did have an
obligation to give the BIA this opportunity—even if it meant filing a motion to reconsider
or reopen. And, accordingly, he has failed to exhaust this argument, and we lack
jurisdiction to consider it. See Garcia-Carbajal v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1233, 1237 (10th
Cir. 2010) (“It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that an agency must have
the opportunity to rule on a challenger’s arguments before the challenger may bring those
arguments to court.”); Rivera-Zurita v. I.N.S., 946 F.2d 118, 120 n.2 (10th Cir. 1991)
(“The failure to raise an issue on appeal to the Board constitutes failure to exhaust
administrative remedies with respect to that question and deprives the Court of Appeals
of jurisdiction to hear the matter.”).
It only serves to reason that this is so because at issue before the BIA was the
quality of the IJ’s assessment of the facts. See Pet.’s BIA Br., Aplt.’s App. at 11 (“The
Immigration Judge’s finding that Caballero-Vega would be persecuted on account of his
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 14
membership in the particular social group was not clearly erroneous.” (emphases added)
(bold-face font omitted)). Yet on appeal here, Petitioner’s argument zeros in the BIA’s
alleged failings in assessing the facts. See Aplt.’s Opening Br. at 11 (“Did the Board of
Immigration Appeals correctly apply the clear error standard where it reversed the
Immigration Court’s nexus finding because the Board endorsed a different interpretation
of the evidence in the record?” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the majority’s own
recounting of Petitioner’s arguments before the BIA and our court reveals as much: viz.,
it reveals that, before the BIA, the focus was the alleged failings of the IJ’s factual
analysis—an analysis that Petitioner defended—and, yet, before our court, the focus is on
the alleged defects of the BIA’s factual analysis—an analysis that Petitioner condemns.
See Maj. Op. at 6–7.
The majority supports its reasoning in substantial part by citing Kabba v. Mukasey,
530 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2008), where we restated the inquiry that the petitioner urged us
to apply in this way: “[D]id the BIA commit possible legal error by reciting the clear
error standard but actually applying a far less deferential standard of review to the IJ’s
credibility determinations, in which case we would review that application of law de
novo.” Id. at 1244. And we ultimately agreed with the petitioner and concluded thusly:
“Although the BIA’s opinion set forth the correct standard of review and recited a
conclusion that the IJ’s credibility findings were clearly erroneous, the BIA did not apply
this deferential standard in substance.” Id. at 1245 (emphasis added).
2
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 15
But this case is procedurally distinguishable from Kabba in one central respect—
which explains why the Kabba panel could review the standard of review issue without
confronting the obstacle of exhaustion, and we cannot review Petitioner’s assumed attack
on the BIA’ application of the clearly erroneous standard. Specifically, in Kabba, we
considered the petitioner’s appeal after the BIA had reversed the IJ’s credibility
determination—ostensibly, under a clearly erroneous standard—and remanded to the IJ
to enter an order of removal. Id. at 1243. The IJ did so, and the petitioner appealed again
to the BIA. See id. at 1244. Critically, in this agency appeal—not only did the BIA
affirm and reincorporate its prior decision—but it explicitly addressed the question of
whether it had correctly applied the clearly erroneous standard of review. See id. As we
recounted: “The BIA also supplemented its prior decision by stating that it did not engage
in fact finding in its first decision and that the IJ’s credibility finding was clearly
erroneous.” Id. (emphasis added).
That was the procedural posture of Kabba when the petitioner appealed that BIA
decision to us. Unremarkably, under those circumstances, we reached the question in
Kabba of whether the BIA correctly applied the clearly erroneous standard, without a hint
of concern regarding whether this issue had been properly exhausted. That is because it
actually had been exhausted. See id. at 1245; see also Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d
1116, 1118, 1122 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[B]ecause the BIA sufficiently considered
Sidabutar’s two unraised claims in its final order and that final order was properly
3
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 16
appealed in this petition for review, we assert jurisdiction over the matters directly ruled
on by the BIA.” (emphases added)).
But Kabba’s procedural circumstances bear no resemblance to those before
us. Petitioner here never gave the BIA an opportunity to consider—much less rule on—
his assumed challenge to the BIA’s application of the clearly erroneous standard. In
other words, he neither raised the issue in his BIA brief, nor did the BIA rule on the
issue. Petitioner was obliged to put this issue before the BIA—even if it meant filing a
motion to reconsider or reopen. See Sidabutar, 503 F.3d at 1122 (noting that the
petitioner “should have brought [the unexhausted claims] before the BIA in the first
instance through a motion to reconsider or reopen”). Therefore, Petitioner’s argument
comes to us unexhausted, and we have no jurisdiction to consider it.
Given that Petitioner’s assumed challenge to the BIA’s application of the clearly
erroneous standard is unexhausted and thus unreviewable, the next step should be to
apply the deferential substantial evidence standard to the BIA’s factual nexus
determination—a truth that even Petitioner recognizes. See Aplt.’s Opening Br. at 25
(arguing in the alternative that “[e]ven the deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard
does not support the Board’s finding that Mr. Caballero-Vega’s informant work and
testimony would not be ‘one central reason’ for his persecution” (bold-face font
omitted)). And under that deferential standard—which the majority’s analysis elides—
suffice it to say that a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to conclude that the
BIA erred on the nexus determination. See Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197, 1204
4
Appellate Case: 21-9506 Document: 010110825418 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 17
(10th Cir. 2006) (“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B)); Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005) (same); cf.
Maj. Op. at 10 (making the observation—which would be insufficient for reversal under
the deferential substantial evidence standard—that “[t]he Board’s review of the IJ’s
nexus finding is not substantiated nearly as well” as the IJ’s nexus analysis).
Accordingly, I would uphold the BIA’s judgment and deny the Petition for review.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
5