Jose Bonilla v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MIGUEL BONILLA, No. 18-70325
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-905-346
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2020**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jose Miguel Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his application
for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
*
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).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner did not
establish it is “more likely than not” that he will be tortured on return. See Del Cid
Marroquin v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (stating standard
of review). Although Petitioner suffered abuse in El Salvador, substantial evidence
supports the immigration judge’s ruling that the treatment did not amount to torture.
See Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gui v. INS, 280
F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Moreover, given the evidence on the efforts of the Salvadoran government to
address and eradicate extrajudicial killings of young men perceived to be gang
members by the police and military, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that “the Salvadoran government does not consent or acquiesce to the
torture of its citizens.” See, e.g., Del Cid Marroquin, 823 F.3d at 937 (“Salvadoran
law prohibits extrajudicial killings and violence, and there is substantial evidence
that the government enforces those laws—albeit imperfectly—against both gang
members and rogue police officers.”).
PETITION DENIED.
2