UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________

No. 20-3300 ______________

JULIANA MARTIREZ ARREAGA BRAVO, Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________

On Petition for Review of a Decision And Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A209-004-970) Immigration Judge: Dinesh C. Verma ______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 13, 2021

Before: MCKEE, GREENAWAY, JR., and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 28, 2021) _____________

Opinion ______________ Brett A. Tarver Troutman Pepper 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2500, Bank of America Plaza Atlanta, GA 30308 Anthony C. Vale Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Petitioner Merrick Garland, Attorney General Lindsay Marshall Jeffrey R. Meyer United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Attorneys for Respondent

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

When an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) makes findings of fact in relation to an individual’s petition for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), in reviewing the IJ’s decision, must defer to the IJ’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.

Here, the IJ held that Petitioner Juliana Martirez Arreaga-Bravo demonstrated that she will more likely than not experience torture if she returns to Guatemala, and that the Guatemalan government would acquiesce in such torture. The IJ thus granted her application for CAT relief and ordered withholding of removal. The Department of Homeland Security appealed, and the BIA reversed—instituting a removal order. In coming to its conclusion, the BIA explained that it was not “sufficiently persuade[d]” that Arreaga-Bravo faces a particularized risk of torture and that it was “unable to agree” with the IJ’s conclusions. A.R. 5. Rather than defer to the IJ’s factual findings and review for clear error, the BIA inserted itself into the factfinder role and disagreed with the IJ’s

2 weighing of the evidence. This was error. As a result, we will vacate the BIA’s final order of removal and remand with instructions to reinstate the decision of the IJ. I. BACKGROUND

Arreaga-Bravo is a thirty-one-year-old woman from Tacana, Guatemala. A.R 171. She arrived in the United States in May 2016. A.R. 171. Shortly after entering the country, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings by issuing a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). A.R. 65. At a Master Calendar hearing in December 2016, Arreaga-Bravo admitted to the factual allegations in the NTA. A.R. 65. In May 2017, she applied for asylum and withholding of removal under CAT. A.R. 65.

Arreaga-Bravo claimed that she had fled Guatemala to escape harassment and sexual violence by the Mara 18 gang. A.R 171. She testified that violence against women is prevalent in Guatemala. To support this claim, she discussed the rape of her older sister, who was fifteen years old at the time of the incident. A.R. 129. Arreaga- Bravo noted the rape was not reported to the police because the nearest police station was four hours away. A.R. 70, 175-76. After the incident, Arreaga-Bravo’s