Luis Chopin-Ramos v. Merrick Garland

facts in the record that rendered such a predictive inference implausible, including

that Chopin-Ramos was a child at the time of the rape, lived unharmed in Mexico

for 6 years after the incident, has had no contact with the rapist since the incident,

and does not know where the rapist is. The BIA did not engage in impermissible

factfinding, but rather found that the predicate facts found by the IJ did not support

2 a reasonable inference that the cousin would torture Chopin-Ramos in the future

with the acquiescence of the Mexican government.

2. Chopin-Ramos also claimed that he was more likely than not to be tortured

if removed on account of his status as gay male in a same-sex marriage. But in

challenging the BIA decision that the IJ’s prediction of future torture was not

supported by the record, Chopin-Ramos “does not point to any fact found by the IJ

that was ignored by the BIA, or any fact found by the BIA that was not found by the

IJ” other than the predictive inference. Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138,

1145 (9th Cir. 2014). In contrast to Guerra, the BIA acknowledged and accepted

the “key factual findings on which the IJ based her conclusion,” 974 F.3d…