Case: 21-679, 04/06/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 6 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Gerardo Rengifo-Sifuentes, No. 21-679 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-311-401 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 29, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: BOGGS,*** M. SMITH, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Gerardo Rengifo-Sifuentes (“Sifuentes”), a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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 Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 21-679, 04/06/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 2 of 4 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition. “Where, as here, the Board adopts the IJ’s decision citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994) and provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ.” Udo v. Garland, 32 F.4th 1198, 1202 (9th Cir. 2022). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2018). “Under [the substantial evidence] standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). To receive CAT protection, Sifuentes must establish that he is more likely than not to experience torture if returned to Peru and that the torture will be perpetrated by the government or with its acquiescence. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2010). “Torture is defined as ‘an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment’ that is ‘specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’” Lopez, 901 F.3d at 1078 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)). 1. The record does not compel a finding that it is more likely than not Sifuentes would be tortured if returned to Peru. Sifuentes fears that he will be kidnapped and killed by criminals who think he has money because he has lived in the United States. However, “[p]rotection under CAT is based entirely on an 2 21-679 Case: 21-679, 04/06/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 3 of 4 objective basis of fear; there is no subjective component to an applicant’s fear of torture.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals