NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT M IC HAEL W . YOUNG SANG, ) No. 14-72276 ) Pe titione r, ) Age n c y No. A072-910-349 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, ) Attorne y Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 4, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, R

AW LINSON, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l W ayne Young Sa ng, a native an d c itiz e n of Ja

m a ic a , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of his a pplic ation for 

# FIL ED OCT 23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT) 1 . W e de ny the pe tition. Young Sa ng a rgue s tha t the B IA’ s de t e rm ination tha t he wa s not e ntitle d to de fe rra l of re m ova l 2 is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . 3 Howe ve r, we m ust uphold theB IA’ s fa c tua l findings unle ss the re c o rd c om pe l s a c ontra ry c onc lusion. Se e IN S v . Elias-Zac a rias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S. C t. 812, 815 n.1, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992); De l C

i d Marroquin v. Ly n c h , 823 F.3d 933, 937 (9th C ir. 2016) (pe r c uriam ). Young Sa

ng would ha

ve to de m onstra

te “ that the e vide nc e he pre s e nte d wa s so c om

pe lling tha

t no re a sona

ble fa c tfinde r c ould fa il to find”tha t it wa s m o re like ly

tha n not tha t he would be subje c te d to torturein Ja m a ic a . E liasZac arias , 502 U.S. a

t 483–84, 112 S. C t . at 817; se e also Lanza , 389 F.3d a t 936. W e have c are fully

re vie we d the re c ord a

nd we are satisfie d tha

t Young Sa

ng c annot m e e t tha

t sta nda rd. In orde r to do so hewould ha ve to show tha

t the e vide nc e c o m

pe l le d the de te rm ination tha t it wa s “ m ore like l y

tha n not tha t he . . . would be torture d if re m ove d” to Ja m a ic a . S e e 8 C .F.R . §§ 1208.16(c )(2),

1 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture and Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre a tm e nt or Punishm e nt, adopte d De c . 10, 1984, S. Tre aty

Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

at 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18. 2 Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.17(a). 3 Se e Lanza v . Ashc roft , 389 F.3d 917, 936 (9th C i r. 2004). 21208.17(a ); se e also Ahme d v . K e isle r , 504 F.3d 1183, 1200 (9th C ir. 2007). Tha t he ha s not done .

“ Torture is a

n e xtre m e form

of c rue l a

nd inhum an tre atm e nt . . . .” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(2). The e vide nc e he re doe s not c om pe l a de te rm ination tha

t Young Sang suffe re d tha

t de gre e of ha

rm in the pa st. S

e e N u ru v . Gonzale

s , 404 F.3d 1207, 1217 (9th C ir. 2005). He did show tha t he suffe re d som e phy sic a l ha rm , but not to a de gre e be spe a

k ing torture . Se e e .g. , Ahme d , 504 F.3d a t 1200–01; K

umar v . Gonzale

s , 444 F.3d 1043, 1047–49, 1055–56 (9th C ir. 2006). Nor doe s the e vide nc e c o m

pe l a de te rm ination tha

t Young Sa

ng would m ore like ly

tha n not be torture d in the future . It is not suffic ie nt to show e vide nc e of ge ne ra liz e d viole nc e 4 and of som e polic e bruta lity , 5 an d Young Sa ng did not e sta

blish “ that [he ] would fa c e any pa rtic ula r thre a t of torture .” 6 M o re ove r, while the Jam a ic an gove rnm e nt m ay not a lwa y s be suc c e ssful in prose c uting pe rpe trators of viole nc e , tha t doe s not c om pe l a de te rm ination tha

t the gove rnm e n t c onse nts to or a c quie sc e s in the viole nc e . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(1); se e also De l C id Marroquin , 823 F.3d a t 937. Pe tition DENIED.

4 Se e De l gado-Ortiz v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam )

5 Se e Lanza , 389 F.3d a

t 936. 6 Dhital v . Muk

ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th C ir. 2008) (pe r c uriam ).

3