NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AIDE SANDOVAL-NUNEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-73503 

Agency No. A096-107-751 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 4, 2018**

Seattle, Washington

Before: BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District 

Judge.

After the Department of Homeland Security ordered that Petitioner Aide 

Sandoval-Nunez be removed to her native country of Mexico, Sandoval-Nunez 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the 

Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-73503 

applied for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17 (2018). The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied her 

application, and Sandoval-Nunez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“BIA”), which dismissed her appeal. Sandoval-Nunez now petitions this Court for 

review of the BIA’s dismissal, seeking remand or, alternatively, reversal. 

1. Sandoval-Nunez’s request for remand is denied. In Maldonado v. Lynch, 

we held that an applicant does not bear a burden of demonstrating that relocation 

within the proposed country of removal is impossible because the IJ must consider 

all relevant evidence and no one factor is determinative. 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th 

Cir. 2015). By considering the ability to relocate as only one of many factors 

pertinent to whether “it is more likely than not that [Sandoval-Nunez] will be 

tortured if removed” to Mexico, the BIA’s decision in this case complied with the 

principles of Maldonado. Id.

2. The BIA did not violate Sandoval-Nunez’s due process rights by failing to 

explicitly address legal arguments advanced on appeal to the BIA. The BIA 

“adopt[ed] and affirm[ed] the decision of the [IJ],” expressed no disagreement with 

any part of the IJ’s decision, and cited to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 

874 (BIA 1994). This signified that the BIA “had conducted an independent review 

of the record and had exercised its own discretion in determining that its 

conclusions were the same as those articulated by the IJ.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 
3 14-73503 

F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the BIA did not err by summarily rejecting

Sandoval-Nunez’s arguments. 

3. Substantial evidence supports denial of Sandoval-Nunez’s application for 

deferral under CAT. Sandoval-Nunez argues the BIA and IJ failed to consider 

evidence that she would be tortured due to her sexual orientation or by individuals 

who abused her as a child or the Sinaloa cartel. Accepting Sandoval’s testimony as 

truthful, the record does not compel a finding that Sandoval-Nunez is more likely 

than not to be tortured at the “acquiescence of a public official or other person 

acting in an official capacity” if removed to Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.