Villalta Martinez v. Bondi

Villalta Martinez · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · October 8, 2025 · No. 24-115(L), 24-1222(Con.)

Summary

The Second Circuit reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ vacatur of an Immigration Judge’s grant of relief under the Convention Against Torture to a Salvadoran national. The court held that the BIA did not sufficiently justify its determination that the Immigration Judge clearly erred, particularly because it did not adequately address corroborating evidence concerning conditions in El Salvador. The lead petition was granted and remanded for further consideration, while the consolidated petition was dismissed as moot.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Jon O. Newman; Michael H. Park?
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
October 8, 2025
Docket number
24-115(L), 24-1222(Con.)
Procedural posture
Petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision vacating an Immigration Judge's grant of relief under the Convention Against Torture and a consolidated petition challenging the BIA's denial of reconsideration.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the BIA's application of the clear-error standard de novo, while reviewing the IJ's underlying factual findings for clear error. The court required the BIA to provide sufficient, cogent justification for rejecting the IJ's factual findings and prohibited the BIA from making its own factual findings.
Precedential value
Published opinion
Parties
Jose Saul Villalta Martinez v. Pamela Bondi, United States Attorney General
Disposition
remanded

Topics

removal proceedingsjudicial review of agency actionadministrative procedure actappellate procedure

Practice areas

immigrationadministrative lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the BIA sufficiently justified its determination that the Immigration Judge clearly erred in granting CAT relief.
  2. Whether the BIA improperly failed to consider corroborating country-conditions evidence concerning Villalta Martinez's tattoos, likely detention, torture, prison conditions, and government intent.
  3. Whether the consolidated petition challenging the BIA's denial of reconsideration remained justiciable after the court granted the lead petition for review.

Holdings

  1. The BIA did not provide sufficient justification for finding that the Immigration Judge clearly erred in determining that Villalta Martinez was more likely than not to be tortured if removed to El Salvador.
  2. The consolidated petition challenging the BIA's denial of reconsideration was moot after the court granted the lead petition and remanded the removal order for further consideration.

Key quotations

What is not in doubt, however, is that the phrase ‘clear error’ is to be taken literally: the error must be clear. (10)
The BIA’s conclusion that Dr. Boerman’s testimony is generalized or anecdotal fails to consider that his testimony was corroborated by various sources in the record that report intentional and systematic torture, including by beating and killing suspected gang members in and outside of prisons, and by starving prisoners and subjecting them to life-threatening prison conditions. (23)

Factual background

Villalta Martinez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 2016 after allegedly being attacked and threatened by MS-13 members. He presented testimony and expert evidence concerning El Salvador's state of exception, including arrests based on tattoos or prior criminal-justice contact, suspension of due-process protections, torture and deaths in custody, and severe prison conditions. The Immigration Judge credited much of the expert testimony and found it more likely than not that Villalta Martinez would be detained and tortured if removed to El Salvador.

Procedural history

Villalta Martinez entered the United States without inspection and was placed in removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge granted CAT relief but denied asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA vacated the CAT grant, finding clear error, and later denied Villalta Martinez's motion to reconsider. The Second Circuit granted the lead petition because the BIA insufficiently justified its clear-error determination, remanded to the BIA, and dismissed the consolidated petition as moot.

Remand instructions

The BIA must either accept the Immigration Judge's findings or provide a supportable basis and sufficient justification for rejecting them under the clear-error standard. The consolidated petition challenging denial of reconsideration was dismissed as moot.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…