Court Opinion

ID: 4550331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-07-22 20:00:35.57957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:59.378825
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 22 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES LUJANO MUNOZ, AKA Andres                 No.    19-70003
Lujano, AKA Lujano Munoz,
                                                Agency No. A206-402-877
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      Andres Lujano Munoz, 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 deferral of removal under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

      *
             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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya

v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo due process

claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir.

2014). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Lujano Munoz failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Lujano Munoz’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise

erred in its analysis of his case are unsupported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                   19-70003