Case Name: Gonzalo Bravo PALACIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-30
Citations: 692 F. App'x 877
Docket Number: No. 14-73638
Parties: Gonzalo Bravo PALACIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 877–878

Head Matter:
Gonzalo Bravo PALACIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73638
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed June 30, 2017
Alejandro Garcia, Attorney, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner
Drew Brinkman, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gonzalo Bravo Palacios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding Bravo Palacios failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Bravo Palacios failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.