Case ID: f-appx_624/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rudolph DECAMBRA, aka Anthony Decambra, aka Rudolph Anthony Decambra, aka Rudy Decambra, aka Roland James, aka Andrew Lyon, aka Ray Wilson, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73573.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2015.
    Douglas Jalaie, Esq., The Law Office of Douglas Jalaie, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Michael Christopher Heyse, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rudolph Decambra, amative and citizen of Guyana, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection 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. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385-86 (9th Cir.2012). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Decambra’s CAT claim because Decambra failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guyana. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2013). We reject Decam-bra’s contention that the BIA did not consider Decambra’s news article or all of the country report.

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