Court Opinion

ID: 4663059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-25 21:00:36.142526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:49.992765
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 25 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIZBETT VARGAS-CHAVEZ,                          No.    16-70090

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A092-113-778

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Lizbett Vargas-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her 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. 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 deferral of removal

under CAT because Vargas-Chavez failed to show it is more likely than not she

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); see

also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding

that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).

      As stated in the court’s April 18, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                       16-70090