“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Gonzalo Chavez Esquivel, an immigrant from Mexico, sought relief from deportation along with his family because he contended that he would be tortured if he were sent back to Mexico.
What happened in this case?
During deportation proceedings, Esquivel contended that he would be tortured by one or more violent groups in Mexico that had demanded that he join them. Accordingly, he maintained he should be protected from deportation by the Convention against Torture (CAT).
Immigration authorities denied his request and he appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In a 2-1 decision in March 2026, Trump judge Daniel Bress and George W Bush judge Carlos Bea affirmed the decision below and denied relief to Esquivel. Clinton judge Richard Paez dissented and would have sent the case back for further evaluation of the torture claim in Esquivel v Bondi.
What was the rationale of Trump judge Bress and George W Bush judge Bea?
Judges Bress and Bea maintained that there was “substantial evidence” to support the decision to deny CAT relief. Although the record established a “possibility” that Esquivel would be tortured, they wrote, “it does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.”
Why did Judge Paez dissent?
Judge Paez explained that according to the record, the immigration agency “failed to engage with highly probative evidence” that Esquivel will “likely face torture” if he is returned to Mexico. This included evidence that he fled Mexico “under fear of death threats” from several gangs if he did not join them, his own testimony that “a lot” of his friends were tortured by the groups, and “country conditions” evidence that the groups “torture and murder” people who “do not comply with their demands.” A “boilerplate statement” that the agency considered all the evidence, he wrote, is “insufficient” where the agency “fails to engage” with “significant evidence” supporting a CAT claim, as in this case. Paez wrote that the case should have been sent back to the agency to fully evaluate the CAT claim.
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling by Trump judge Bress and George W Bush judge Bea obviously harms Gonzalo Chavez Esquivel and his family in their effort to avoid deportation due to the significant possibility of torture upon his return to Mexico. It also sets a bad precedent in evaluating CAT cases, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.