Jose Rios-Ruiz v. Jefferson Sessions , 693 F. App'x 621 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
JOSE ENRIQUE RIOS-RUIZ, AKA Jose No. 14-73580
Enrique Ries Rios, AKA Jose Enrique Rios
Rios, AKA Jose Enique Rios-Ruiz, AKA Agency No. A098-764-955
Jose Enrique Riosruiz, AKA Jose Enrique
Rioz-Rios,
MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner,
v.
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.
Jose Enrique Rios-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from
*
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).
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings and review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rios-Ruiz failed
to establish it is more likely than not he was or would be recruited by gang
members based on a direct or imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (applicant must provide some evidence of motive, direct
or circumstantial). We reject his contention that the BIA ignored evidence. Thus,
his withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Rios-Ruiz’s CAT
claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject his contention
that the BIA did not fully consider his claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73580