Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0711-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sergio JACOBO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73232
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 24, 2016
    Sanjay Sobti, U.S. Law Center, Corona, CA.
    Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Jacobo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and review de novo due process claims, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Jacobo failed to establish it is .more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity if returned to Mexico. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[a] government does not acquiesce in the torture of its citizens merely because it is aware of torture but powerless to stop it”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, we reject Ja-cobo’s contention that the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

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