Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0306-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin MAGANA-PARDO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71151
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted  January 16, 2018
    Filed January 22, 2018
    James Todd Bennett, Pro Se
    Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial Attorney, 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: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Magana-Pardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative).

We reject Magana Pardo’s contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence.

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