Case Name: Tirso MILIAN-ERISA, aka Ruben Milian-Eriza, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-31
Citations: 608 F. App'x 561
Docket Number: No. 14-72803
Parties: Tirso MILIAN-ERISA, aka Ruben Milian-Eriza, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 561–561

Head Matter:
Tirso MILIAN-ERISA, aka Ruben Milian-Eriza, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72803.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2015.
Filed July 31, 2015.
Tirso Milian-Erisa, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, O.I.L., Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, 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
Tirso Milian-Erisa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for- review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Milian-Erisa failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.