Court Opinion

ID: 4857922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-25 20:01:55.971816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:31.516172
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

MIGUEL ANGEL HERRERA AYALA,                     No.    20-70126

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A098-246-929

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before:      SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      Miguel Angel Herrera Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 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. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for

review.

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

Herrera Ayala failed to show 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

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

      We reject as unsupported by the record Herrera Ayala’s contentions that the

agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2