Case: 21-956, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Luis Abraham Contreras, No. 21-956 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-262-466 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2023.** Portland, Oregon Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Luis Abraham Contreras (Contreras), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of relief under * 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). Case: 21-956, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 2 of 4 the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 “[W]e review the factual determinations underlying denials of CAT relief for substantial evidence.” Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “Under that highly deferential standard, we must accept the BIA’s factual findings as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 1217-18 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “To qualify for CAT relief, an applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. . . .” Id. at 1221 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “In assessing CAT claims, the BIA must consider all evidence, including evidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured. . . .” Dawson v. Garland, 998 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Contrary to Contreras’s assertion that he was entitled to CAT relief because he credibly testified that he intended to return to Nayarit, Mexico, “in assessing eligibility for CAT relief, the agency must consider the possibility of relocation—without regard for the reasonableness of relocation that is 1 “When the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision with a citation to Matter of Burbano[,] [20 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 1994),] and also adds its own comments, as it did here, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ.” Gonzalez- Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). 2 21-956 Case: 21-956, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 3 of 4 considered in other types of applications (asylum and withholding of removal under the [Immigration and Nationality Act]”). Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 705 (9th Cir. 2022), as amended (citation omitted) (emphases in the original). “[T]he reasonableness of a relocation is not relevant to a CAT claim, where the agency considers only whether safe relocation is possible, not whether it is reasonable …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals