Osbaldo Flores-Mondragon v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 10 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    OSBALDO O. FLORES-MONDRAGON,                    No.    19-71829
    Mondragon Flores,
    Agency No. A072-258-519
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 2, 2020**
    Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Osbaldo O. Flores-Mondragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
    se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
    from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of
    removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
    findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 
    755 F.3d 1026
    , 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny
    the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
    under CAT because Flores-Mondragon failed to show it is more likely than not he
    would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
    returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 
    644 F.3d 829
    , 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (possibility of torture too speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 
    600 F.3d 1148
    ,
    1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is
    insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief).
    We do not consider the materials attached to Flores-Mondragon’s opening
    brief that were not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the
    administrative record underlying the agency’s decision).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    19-71829
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-71829

Filed Date: 6/10/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/10/2020