Rodolfo Guzman-Martinez v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO GUZMAN-MARTINEZ, No. 18-72450
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-856-793
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Guzman-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We consider questions of law de novo, and we review factual findings for
substantial evidence. Guan v. Barr, 925 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2019). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Guzman-Martinez failed to establish that it is more likely than not that 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 140, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and
crime in Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish
eligibility for CAT relief). In determining whether Guzman-Martinez met his
burden of proof, the agency properly considered the lack of evidence of any past
torture. See Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2019) (evidence of
past torture is relevant in assessing whether torture is more likely than not).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2