NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 11 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN LUENGAS-NAVARRETE, No. 16-73068 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-746-083 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 7, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,*** District Judge. Petitioner Juan Luengas Navarrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), * 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 Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. which denied his withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review the [BIA’s] legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence[.]” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). We deny the petition for review. 1. Luengas Navarrete does not argue that the BIA disregarded certain evidence or committed legal error; instead, he essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence. Substantial evidence, however, supports the denial of relief under CAT. “To establish entitlement to protection under CAT, an applicant must show ‘it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.’” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). As defined for the purposes of CAT, torture is the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering that is “inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). When evaluating a CAT claim, “the [immigration judge] must consider all relevant evidence; no one factor is determinative.” Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). The record provides little evidence in support of Luengas Navarrete’s claim 2 for relief. At his merits hearing, Luengas Navarrete testified that neither he nor any of his immediate family members have been harmed in Mexico. He testified that a distant relative was killed, but provided no details about the relative or the killing. Although he testified he thought the police in Mexico might harm him, he did not provide any basis for this belief, and he testified he did not believe any other members of the government would target him. Luengas Navarrete points to a country conditions report which states that torture by or with the acquiescence of government officials occurs with some frequency in Mexico. He provides no evidence, however, that he faces a particular threat …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals