NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO CHAVEZ-FLORES, No. 14-71227 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-320-736 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Chavez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for the review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Chavez-Flores established extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, we deny the petition as to Chavez-Flores’ asylum claim. The BIA denied Chavez-Flores’ withholding of removal claim on the ground that Chavez-Flores could relocate within Mexico. Substantial evidence supports this finds. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (b)(3); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003) (substantial evidence supported finding that presumption of future persecution was rebutted). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Chavez-Flores’ withholding of removal claim. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Chavez- Flores’ CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71227 14-71227 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Ricardo Chavez-Flores v. Jefferson Sessions 31 October 2017 Agency Unpublished 1abcfc89d295541ae32a76473162021e061efbc9
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals