Eduardo Ramos Guzman v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDUARDO RAMOS GUZMAN, No. 16-71726 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-267-324 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 11, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN,*** District Judge. Eduardo Ramos Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) * 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 James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and is therefore not entitled to relief from a reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833–36 (9th Cir. 2016). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Guzman failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would suffer future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “vague threats” do not support withholding of removal). Any past persecution that Guzman suffered was not on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Guzman failed to demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico if he were deported there. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (denying CAT claim because fear of torture was speculative). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71726 16-71726 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Eduardo Ramos Guzman v. Jefferson Sessions 20 October 2017 Agency Unpublished 6c92f06c5a0e057e908a53ab9bbcce96d0d2d1ca

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals