NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELIX CRISTOBAL SOSA, AKA Felix No. 16-71776 Cristobalsosa, Agency No. A086-950-949 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Felix Cristobal Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Cristobal Sosa established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Cristobal Sosa’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cristobal Sosa failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted on account of membership in a particular social group or imputed political opinion. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (to qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate a likelihood of persecution on account of a protected ground); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (“To establish imputed political opinion, an applicant must show that his persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to him.”) (quotation and citation omitted). Thus, Cristobal Sosa’s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 2 16-71776 because Cristobal Sosa failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-71776 16-71776 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Felix Cristobal Sosa v. Jefferson Sessions, III 31 October 2018 Agency Unpublished e6f4bc358aa2e07e68e8df5012c44084441ba5bb
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals