Court Opinion

ID: 4539057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-06-04 20:00:25.92108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:29.370651
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 4 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISTIAN EDUARDO MOLINA-POVER,                  No.    17-70485
AKA Cristian Molina-Pover,
                                                Agency No. A200-885-242
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Cristian Eduardo Molina-Pover, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief

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

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

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the

petition for review.

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

Molina-Pover 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 Honduras. See

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

      We reject as unsupported by the record Molina-Pover’s contentions that the

agency failed to consider record evidence in its analysis of his CAT claim.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2