Immigration authorities wrongly denied the asylum application of a man who assisted law enforcement in the United States only to be threatened by cartel members upon his deportation to Mexico, the federal appeals court based in Denver ruled on Monday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit decided, 2-1, there was a link between G.C-V.’s role in testifying against members of a Mexican-American prison gang and his fear of being harmed should he be forced to return to Mexico a second time.

“The fact that (G.C-V.) was not persecuted in Mexico is of little-to-no probative value here because he escaped before he could be identified by cartel members,” wrote Judge Allison H. Eid in the March 13 order.

Colorado Politics is using the man’s initials given the threat of persecution he faces.

G.C-V. arrived in the United States at age 8 and remained in the country despite a deportation order that had a 2005 deadline. Instead, G.C-V. assisted law enforcement in Northern California in going after Nuetra Familia, an organization of Chicano prison gangs involved in drug, firearm and human trafficking offenses. He testified against Nuestra Familia members and entered witness protection as a result.

Following a criminal offense in Colorado, authorities deported him to Mexico in 2019. The same day G.C-V. arrived, eight armed men accosted him – appearing to belong to the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación, a group described as “ostentatiously violent.” The men reportedly took pictures of his paperwork and said they would return for him. G.C-V. took a bus to Tijuana, where CJNG members again approached him and interrogated him.

G.C-V. reentered the U.S. after two months to apply for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He claimed he faced persecution on account of his past work as a witness who testified against gangs.

In November 2019, an immigration judge agreed G.C-V.’s fears were well-founded. Given the cooperation between the Chicano gang and Mexican cartels, there was motivation to harm G.C-V. should he return.

“There is good reason to connect the activities of these gang members here with Mexico,” California’s then-Attorney General Kamala Harris said in 2011.

But the federal government appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which reversed the immigration judge and ordered G.C-V.’s deportation. 

A majority of the 10th Circuit panel believed the board had not provided sufficient justification for deeming the immigration judge’s decision erroneous. On the one hand, the immigration judge relied on a large amount of evidence suggesting G.C-V. was in danger:

? A district attorney’s investigator in California opined G-C.V. was “at risk from retaliation”

? A representative of the gang told G.C-V. he had placed its members in “a large amount of trouble”

? Law enforcement recognized Mexican cartels cooperate with the gang organization

? Evidence existed of cartels beating and killing government cooperators

On the other hand, the Board of Immigration Appeals found G.C-V. was not harmed in the United States after giving testimony and his fears of persecution in Mexico were “speculative.”

The 10th Circuit found the immigration judge’s rationale for asylum to be more persuasive, concluding “none of the reasons the BIA offers for vacating the IJ’s decision justifies the BIA’s finding,” wrote Eid for herself and Senior Judge David M. Ebel.

Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes dissented, believing G-C.V. did not properly give the board the opportunity to address his argument made on appeal.

The panel returned G.C-V.’s asylum petition to the board to either accept the immigration judge’s decision or to provide better justification for its order to deport G.C-V.

The case is G.C-V. v. Garland.