NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE CRUZ BASTIDAS, No. 16-72005 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-696-653 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 4, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** District Judge. Jose Bastidas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of an * 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). *** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.1 We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and will uphold those findings unless the record compels the court to conclude differently. Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2013)). We deny the petition. Bastidas argues that the Board erred by finding that he did not prove it was more likely than not that the Sinaloa cartel would torture him in retaliation for cooperating with United States law-enforcement authorities, if he was removed to Mexico. In 2010, Bastidas was driving a load of cocaine to New Jersey when the Highway Patrol stopped him in Missouri and found the cocaine. He agreed to 1 Section 1252 provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law . . . no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order or removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed” certain criminal offenses, but preserves jurisdiction over “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). The United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 (Oct. 18, 2019), which presents the question “[w]hether, notwithstanding Section 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.” Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 (May 14, 2019). We decide this case in accordance with current Ninth Circuit precedent, under which we have jurisdiction over Bastidas’s challenge to the denial of deferral of removal under the CAT. See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012). Because any determination by the Supreme Court that we lack jurisdiction would have no effect on the outcome of this case, we proceed under our existing caselaw. 2 cooperate and continued driving to the designated delivery point in New Jersey where authorities arrested four others. One ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals