Arturo Perez-Gutierrez v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUL 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ARTURO PEREZ-GUTIERREZ, No. 16-70519
Petitioner, Agency No. A036-732-544
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON, FISHER,*** and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Arturo Perez-Gutierrez’s claim for
protection under the Convention Against Torture, and the Board of Immigration
*
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).
***
The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 2
Appeals (“BIA”) upheld the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Perez-
Gutierrez petitions for review of the BIA’s decision.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Perez-Gutierrez
has not shown that he is more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico. The record
demonstrates the appalling conditions in Mexican mental health facilities. But this
court’s decision in Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008), forecloses
the argument that these conditions alone constitute torture. Rather, Perez-Gutierrez
had the burden to show that “Mexican officials (or private actors to whom officials
have acquiesced) created these conditions for the specific purpose of inflicting
suffering upon the patients.” Id. at 989. The evidence does not compel the
conclusion that such a showing has been made here. And while the record
documents specific instances of assault, restraint, and involuntary surgery that meet
this standard, the record does not compel the conclusion that Perez-Gutierrez in
particular is more likely than not to be a victim of these abuses.
Perez-Gutierrez contends that because of his severe disabilities, removing
him to Mexico violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishments. But this guarantee does not apply to civil proceedings, including
removal. See Briseno v. INS, 192 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 1999).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.