Court Opinion

ID: 9380588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 17:00:53.358244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.317841
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL ANGEL GONZALEZ-FLORES,                   No.    20-73254

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A209-138-790

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Rafael Angel Gonzalez-Flores, 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.

      *
             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 protection

because Gonzalez-Flores 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).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                     20-73254