Case Name: Lorenzo CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-03
Citations: 693 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 15-73938
Parties: Lorenzo CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 550–550

Head Matter:
Lorenzo CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-73938
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 3, 2017
Douglas Jalaie, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Office of Douglas Jalaie, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer R. Khouri, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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
Lorenzo Cabrera,' a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the immigration judge's ("IJ") determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ's factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review,
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Cabrera failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence did not indicate a particularized threat of torture to petitioner).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.