NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS EDUARDO LA SCALA, No. 19-70285 Petitioner, Agency No. A028-461-512 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 16, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and BAYLSON,*** District Judge. Eduardo La Scala, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying La Scala’s claim for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“Torture Convention”) and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Michael M. Baylson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ordering him removed to Brazil. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s order, we review both decisions. Sanchez v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 643, 649 (9th Cir. 2018). We review the agency’s factual determinations for substantial evidence, which means that we uphold those determinations “‘unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion,’” and we review questions of law de novo. Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 769–70 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). We deny the petition. 1 1. A petitioner claiming protection under the Torture Convention bears the burden to show that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); id. § 1208.17(a) (remedy of deferral is applied after standards under § 1208.16 have first been applied). “Torture” means “any act by which severe pain or suffering . . . is intentionally inflicted on a person” for specified purposes “when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Id. § 1208.18(a)(1). La Scala claims that, because he suffers from schizoaffective disorder and other mental illnesses, upon removal to Brazil he is likely to have a 1 We thank the students of the University of California, Irvine School of Law for their participation in our pro bono program and for the quality of their briefing in this matter. 2 police encounter that will lead to a likelihood of torture from three separate groups—police, prison guards, and fellow prisoners. While we agree that—given La Scala’s mental illness and extensive criminal record—the administrative record here supports, if not compels, the conclusion that La Scala is likely to have police contacts after removal to Brazil, we conclude that substantial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals