Rodulio Padilla-Sarmiento v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODULIO ADONAY PADILLA- No. 15-71305 SARMIENTO, AKA Rodulio Padilla Adonay, Agency No. A096-386-723 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. 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. Rodulio Adonay Padilla-Sarmiento, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief * 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). under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the motion to reconsider his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla-Sarmiento’s motion to reconsider his asylum and withholding of removal claims because he failed to identify a legal or factual error in the agency’s prior decision. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we deny the petition as to Padilla-Sarmiento’s challenge to the agency’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Padilla-Sarmiento’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying CAT relief where the record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government). We reject Padilla-Sarmiento’s contentions that the agency erred in its analysis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Padilla- 2 15-71305 Sarmiento’s CAT claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-71305 15-71305 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Rodulio Padilla-Sarmiento v. Jefferson Sessions 26 October 2017 Agency Unpublished 7b431eda047170246af18f9efb2e4cce7d6db374

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals