Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugo PARGA-PEDROZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70219.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 4, 2014.
    Manuel Q. Diones, II, Esquire, Law Offices of Manuel Q. Diones, LLLC, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Margot Carter, Trial, OIL, DOJ-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: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hugo Parga-Pedroza, 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 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the finding that Parga-Pedroza demonstrated it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence (including the concept of willful blindness) of a public official in Mexico. See id. at 1073; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7) (“Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.”). We reject Parga-Pedroza’s contention that the agency failed to give “proper deference” to his credible testimony, or that it failed to consider the entirety of the evidence. Thus, Parga-Pedroza’s CAT claim fails.

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