FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 28 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BONIFACIO TORRES-HURTADO, No. 18-73141 Petitioner, Agency No. A091-760-693 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 18, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,*** District Judge. Petitioner Bonifacio Torres-Hurtado (Petitioner) is a native and citizen of Mexico. He seeks review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals * 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 Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we DENY the petition. 1. We review the factual findings underlying the BIA’s determination that a petitioner is ineligible for deferral of removal under CAT for substantial evidence. See Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant a petition for review only if the evidence compels the conclusion that the BIA’s decision was erroneous. See Jie Shi Liu v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2018). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Mexico. Petitioner testified that he was shot five times twenty years ago and that the attack was motivated by a local gang’s attempt to recruit his brother Roberto to join their ranks. In the twenty years since the shooting, however, Roberto died and Petitioner has returned to Mexico without incident. Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that when evaluating a CAT claim, “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered, including, but not limited to: [e]vidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant; [and] [e]vidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured”) 2 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s testimony therefore failed to establish that he is more likely than not to experience future torture.1 Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Petitioner does not face a clear probability of torture by or with government acquiescence. Petitioner testified that the police knew the identity of the man who shot him, but did not arrest him. This testimony is insufficient to establish government acquiescence without a showing that the police are “unable or unwilling to oppose . . . crime.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Although Petitioner testified regarding his belief that the police did not arrest …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals