Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0527-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gloria Villa DE CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72350
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 19, 2017
    Thomas A. Láppin, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
    Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: CÁNBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable' for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gloria Villa de Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to terminate removal proceedings, denying her application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and ordering her removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review dé novo the denial of a motion to terminate and claims of constitutional violations. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). 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 err or violate due process in denying Villa de Carrillo’s motion to terminate removal| proceedings or in sustaining the removability charges, because Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder forecloses her contention that her statements to immigration officials at the border were unconstitutionally obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(e). 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009); see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Villa de Carrillo’s CAT claim, because Villa de Carrillo failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Silaya at 1073; Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 836-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture were speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.