NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ARTURO PEREZ-GUTIERREZ, No. 16-70519 Petitioner, Agency No. A036-732-544 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: BERZON, FISHER,*** and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Arturo Perez-Gutierrez’s claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture, and the Board of Immigration * 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 D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. Page 2 of 2 Appeals (“BIA”) upheld the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Perez- Gutierrez petitions for review of the BIA’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Perez-Gutierrez has not shown that he is more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico. The record demonstrates the appalling conditions in Mexican mental health facilities. But this court’s decision in Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008), forecloses the argument that these conditions alone constitute torture. Rather, Perez-Gutierrez had the burden to show that “Mexican officials (or private actors to whom officials have acquiesced) created these conditions for the specific purpose of inflicting suffering upon the patients.” Id. at 989. The evidence does not compel the conclusion that such a showing has been made here. And while the record documents specific instances of assault, restraint, and involuntary surgery that meet this standard, the record does not compel the conclusion that Perez-Gutierrez in particular is more likely than not to be a victim of these abuses. Perez-Gutierrez contends that because of his severe disabilities, removing him to Mexico violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. But this guarantee does not apply to civil proceedings, including removal. See Briseno v. INS, 192 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 1999). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 16-70519 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Arturo Perez-Gutierrez v. Jefferson Sessions 16 July 2018 Agency Unpublished 69b35b3677d4299639c60d375c58d148611ff835
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals