FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ, No. 21-70064 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A204-822-401 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2021 * Phoenix, Arizona Filed December 21, 2021 Before: Ronald Lee Gilman, ** Daniel A. Bress, and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge VanDyke * The parties jointly moved to submit this case on the briefs without oral argument, which was granted. ** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ V. GARLAND SUMMARY *** Immigration Denying Jose Alfredo Rodriguez-Jimenez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that (1) the Board and the Immigration Judge (collectively, agency) sufficiently considered Rodriguez- Jimenez’s claim for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and provided an adequate rationale for rejecting that claim; and (2) because substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT protection, Rodriguez-Jimenez failed to establish that any alleged due process violation caused him prejudice. Rodriguez-Jimenez claimed that the Board did not sufficiently consider the evidence relevant to his claim of future torture. Reviewing both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions, the panel concluded that the record demonstrated that the agency considered the relevant evidence and announced its decisions in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that the agency had heard and thought and not merely reacted to Rodriguez-Jimenez’s claims. The panel wrote that this is all that is required; the agency need not provide a detailed explanation of every argument or piece of evidence in its decision. Rodriguez-Jimenez next argued that the Board violated his right to due process by not providing him an opportunity to provide additional corroborating evidence or explain his testimonial inconsistencies. The panel concluded that this *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ V. GARLAND 3 claim failed for lack of prejudice because substantial evidence supported the Board’s rejection of his CAT claim, irrespective of any testimonial inconsistencies. The panel explained that although Rodriguez-Jimenez argued that some local police have acquiesced to threats of narco- trafficking violence, he failed to provide any evidence beyond his own personal speculation that he would face such acquiescence—particularly since he did not dispute that the police responded to the incidents that form the basis of his claim for relief. COUNSEL Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group LLP, Mesa, Arizona, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. 4 RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ V. GARLAND OPINION VANDYKE, Circuit Judge: In this case, Jose Alfredo Rodriguez-Jimenez claims that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (1) did not sufficiently consider the evidence …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals