Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0881-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Angel Nicolas Colin ENZANA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73848
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed June 30, 2017
    Henry Cruz, Attorney, Rios & Cruz, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, 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: BEA, PAEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Angel Nicolas Colin Enzana, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Colin Enzana’s request for judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Colin Enzana’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073; Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture were speculative). We reject Colin Enzana’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in its analysis. Thus, his CAT claim fails.

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