Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose L. ANGUIANO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71764.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
    Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Esquire, Susan Bennett Green, OIL, Matthew Downer, DOJ, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Divisioh/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose L. Anguiano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“D”) decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Anguiano failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.2010) (denying relief under CAT where only “general evidence of violence and crime” was presented); see also Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2008) (concluding the evidence did not indicate a particularized threat of torture to petitioner). Thus, petitioner’s claim for relief under CAT fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.