Oscar Velazquez-Prado v. Jefferson Sessions , 691 F. App'x 898 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 7 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    OSCAR SAUL VELAZQUEZ-PRADO,                     No.    14-72157
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-464-594
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 26, 2017**
    Before:      PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Oscar Saul Velazquez-Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
    from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
    removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
    *
    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).
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v.
    Mukasey, 
    512 F.3d 1163
    , 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference
    is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations,
    Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for
    substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1066
    , 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not err in finding that Velazquez-Prado failed to establish
    membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 
    816 F.3d 1226
    , 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of
    removal claim.
    Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Velazquez-
    Prado’s CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he would
    be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See
    Silaya, 
    524 F.3d at 1073
    .
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    14-72157
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-72157

Citation Numbers: 691 F. App'x 898

Judges: Paez, Bea, Murguia

Filed Date: 7/7/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024