Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0912-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Jose Virgen VALENZUELA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72588
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed June 30, 2017
    Alejandro Garcia, Attorney, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, David H. Wetmore, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, 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

Juan Jose Virgen Valenzuela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral 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. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Virgen Valenzuela failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence in Mexico insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT); Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (despite “troubling country reports,” evidence did not compel the conclusion that it was more likely than not that the petitioner would be tortured upon return).

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