Angel Colin Enzana v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 30 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ANGEL NICOLAS COLIN ENZANA,                     No.    15-73848
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A099-579-787
    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:      BEA, PAEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Angel Nicolas Colin Enzana, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
    immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 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 for substantial evidence the
    agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1066
    , 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
    and we deny the petition for review.
    Colin Enzana’s request for judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Colin Enzana’s CAT
    claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
    by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Silaya,
    
    524 F.3d at 1073
    ; Zheng v. Holder, 
    644 F.3d 829
    , 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims
    of possible torture were speculative). We reject Colin Enzana’s contentions that
    the agency applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in its analysis.
    Thus, his CAT claim fails.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   15-73848
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-73848

Filed Date: 6/30/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021