N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OSENDO ESC A RPITA-C AB RER A, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-72095 Age n c y No. A095-271-224 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Nove m be r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. R ose ndo Esc a

rpita -C a bre ra , a nat ive and c itiz e n

of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de nia l of his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture



# FIL ED N OV 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions of la

w, a nd we re vie w for substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a ge n c y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e gran t in pa

rt, de ny in pa rt, a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w , a nd re m and. The a ge n c y

de te rm i ne d tha

t Esc arpita -C a

bre ra ’ s the ft c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 487(c ) wa s a n a ggravate d fe lony the ft offe nse unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(43)(G) tha t re nde re d him

sta tutorily ine ligiblefor a sy lum . At the tim e it de c ide d this c a se , the a ge nc y did not ha

ve the be ne fit of this c ourt’ s de c ision in Lope

z -Vale nc ia v . Ly nc h , 798 F.3d 863, 871 (9th C ir. 2015), c onc luding tha

t “ C a lifornia ’ s the ft sta

tute is both overbroa d a

n d indivisible

. . . a nd a c onvic tion unde r it c a

n ne ve r be a

‘ the ft offe nse ’ a s de fine d in 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(G).” W e the re fore grant in pa rt his m otions to re m and, a nd re m and for the B IA to c o nside r whe the r Esc arpita -C a bre ra is e ligiblefor a s y lum . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of withholding of re m ova l, whe re Esc a

rpita -C a bre ra fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution, se e Lim v . IN S , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C i r. 2000) (“ Thre ats sta nding a lone . . . c onstitute pa st pe rse c ution in only

a sm a ll c ate gory

of c a se s, a

n d only whe n the thre ats a

re so m e na c ing a s to c a

use signific a

nt a c tua l suffe ring or ha

rm .” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a nd c ita tion omitte d)), or tha

t it is more like ly

tha n not he will be pe rse c ute d 1 4 - 7 2 0 9 5 2in M e xic o by his fa the r or drug c arte l m e m

be rs, se e N

agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (fe a r of future ha

rm too spe c ulative ), or tha

t Esc arpita C a bre ra c ould not re a sona

bly re loc ate within M e xic o, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b)(3). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Esc arpita C a bre ra ’ s C AT c l a im

be c a use he fa ile d to e s ta

blish tha t it is mo re like ly

tha n not he would betorture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to M e xic o. Se e Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t Esc arpita C a bre ra h a d not sa

tisfie d his burde n of proving by c le a r a nd c onvinc ing e vide nc e that he is pre se n t in theUnite d State s pursua nt to a prior la wful a d m i ssion. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(2)(B ). W e ne e d not re a c h Esc arpita -C a bre ra ’ s c onte ntions in his m otion to re m and re ga rding the re duc tion in his se nte nc e for his the ft c o nvic tion. Esc arpita -C a

bre ra ’ s c ha l le nge to his c ontinue d de te n tion is not prope rly be fore us. Se e Le onardo v . C raw ford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th C ir. 2011) (noting e ntitle m e nt to bond he aring for c e rta in a lie ns he l d in c ustody and se tting forth

1 4 - 7 2 0 9 5 3proc e d

ure for c ha lle nging bond de te rm i nations). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts for this petition for re vie w . PE T IT IO N G RANT E D in par t; DE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t; RE M A NDE D.

1 4 - 7 2 0 9 5 4