Court Opinion

ID: 4689956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-25 20:01:25.051277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:18.518036
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

ARMANDO MUNOZ RODRIGUEZ, AKA                    No.    19-71109
Armando Rodriguez,
                                                Agency No. A092-433-225
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Armando Munoz Rodriguez, 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 deferral of

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

      *
             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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny

the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal

under CAT because Munoz Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not 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);

Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible

torture speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)

(“generalized evidence of violence and crime” was not particular to petitioners and

was insufficient to meet CAT standard).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                  19-71109