NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO JAVIER FLORES MEDINA, No. 19-70678 AKA Francisco Flores, AKA Javier Flores, AKA Roberto Cenovio Flores, AKA Marco Agency No. A077-057-256 Medina, AKA Slow Moniker Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 14, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and STEELE,** District Judge. Petitioner Francisco Javier Flores Medina (Flores) is a transgender citizen of Mexico who identifies as female. In her prior petition to this court, Flores appealed * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision that she did not qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. We granted the petition in part and remanded to the BIA for further limited proceedings. Medina v. Sessions, 734 Fed. App’x. 479 (9th Cir. 2018). As relevant to the current appeal, we found that while the BIA adequately addressed Flores’s sexual orientation, the BIA erred in failing to consider separately the effect of Flores’s transgender identity as to her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Id. at 482- 83, 484. The case was remanded to the BIA “for the limited purpose of assessing the effect of Flores’s transgender identity on her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection . . . .” Id. at 484. On remand, the BIA considered the same record as had been previously submitted, affirmed the IJ’s order, and dismissed Flores’s appeal. The BIA held that Flores’s 2014 arson conviction was a particularly serious crime that rendered her statutorily ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal eligibility. Alternatively, assuming her eligibility, the BIA concluded that Flores failed to establish the merits of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. Flores is now before the court on a petition to review the decision of the BIA on remand. Flores challenges the BIA decision only as to its denial of CAT protection, while not appealing the BIA’s decision as to her asylum and withholding 2 of removal claims. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) to review the BIA’s denial of a claim for CAT protection. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015). “We review for substantial evidence the factual findings underlying the BIA’s determination that an applicant is not eligible for CAT protection.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). Because the BIA adopted the reasoning of the IJ, we review the decision of both the IJ and the BIA. Becker v. Gonzales, 473 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals