NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pe titioner 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 Sa ndoval

- 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. 78 6 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 wi th 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 dis agreement with any part of the IJ’s decision , and cited to Matter of Burbano , 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). This signifie d that the BIA “had conducted an independent review of the record and had exercised its own discretion in determining that its

c onclusions were the same as those articulated by the IJ.” Abebe v. Gonzales , 4323 14

- 73503

F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) . Thus, the BIA did not err by summarily reject ing
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 capacit y” 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

.