Case Name: Freddy Martin DAVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-30
Citations: 581 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 12-73577
Parties: Freddy Martin DAVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 660–660

Head Matter:
Freddy Martin DAVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73577.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 25, 2014.
Filed June 30, 2014.
Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN and NGUYEN, 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
Freddy Martin Davila, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his application for deferral of removal under CAT. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir.2013). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Davila failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he would be subjected to torture if returned to Nicaragua. See id. (upholding denial of CAT relief where petitioner presented a series of worst-case scenarios rather than presenting hard evidence of a clear probability of torture based on family's previous association with the Somoza regime); see also Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2010) (affirming denial of CAT relief where petitioner presented "no evidence" of a likelihood of torture in Nicaragua.). We reject Davila's attempts to distinguish Blandino-Medina and Robleto-Pastora, and we reject his contention that the BIA failed to consider his and his mother's testimony.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.