FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 24 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL BENITO-SANCHEZ, ) No. 16-71223 ) Petitioner, ) Agency No. A079-764-476 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM* ) JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ) Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. ) ) On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge Submitted November 7, 2017** Portland, Oregon Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and MELLOY,*** Circuit Judges. Gabriel Benito-Sanchez petitions for review of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) April 27, 2016, decision concurring in the determination by the Asylum Officer * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. (AO) that Benito had not shown a reasonable fear1 of persecution2 or torture3 in Mexico.4 We deny the petition. (1) Benito asserts that the petition should be granted and the matter should be remanded because the IJ did not sufficiently set forth the basis of her decision. We do not agree. The IJ sufficiently supported her decision to deny Benito relief when she considered the “detailed findings and decision” of the AO and concurred in them. Certainly, there was no due process violation because the alien, who was represented by counsel at all times, was not subjected to a fundamentally unfair process. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014); Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365, 380 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 220, 225–26, 125 S. Ct. 2384, 2393, 2395-96, 162 L. Ed. 2d 174 (2005); Buckingham v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t 1 See 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(e); id. § 208.31(a), (c), (g)(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). 2 See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). 3 See United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18 (hereafter CAT); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). 4 The IJ ordered the return of the case to the Department of Homeland Security, which had ordered reinstatement of an April 2002 removal that had previously been reinstated in 2008. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). 2 of Agric., 603 F.3d 1073, 1082–84 (9th Cir. 2010). (2) Benito also asserts that the IJ and AO erred when they determined that the evidence before them did not establish that he had a reasonable fear that he would be persecuted or tortured in Mexico. We disagree. The reasonable fear regulation provides that the alien must set forth sufficient evidence to establish a “reasonable possibility” that he would be persecuted or tortured. 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(c); see also ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals