Sofonias Alfaro-Reyes v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOFONIAS ALFARO-REYES, No. 19-70742
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-764-166
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Sofonias Alfaro-Reyes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and denying his request to remand and
terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Alfaro-Reyes failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d
829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alfaro-Reyes’ request to
remand and terminate proceedings where his contention that the immigration court
lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr,
958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from NTA can
be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
As stated in the court’s June 26, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-70742