Carlos Adame De La Rosa v. Loretta E. Lynch , 650 F. App'x 933 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ADAME DE LA ROSA, AKA No. 14-71218
Jose Hernandez,
Agency No. A200-149-261
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Adame de la Rosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and review de novo due process contentions, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Adame de la Rosa contends in his opening brief that it is more likely than
not he will be persecuted in Mexico on account of his membership in two
particular social groups – his biological family and parents of disabled children.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Adame de la Rosa
failed to establish a clear probability of persecution on account of a protected
ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009)
(under the REAL ID Act, applicant must prove a protected ground will be at least
“one central reason” for persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th
Cir. 2003) (evidence did not compel a finding that it was more probable than not
that petitioner would be persecuted). The record does not support Adame de la
Rosa’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his arguments on appeal. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a
due process claim). Thus, we deny the petition as to Adame de la Rosa’s
withholding of removal claim.
2 14-71218
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Adame de la
Rosa’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 if returned to
Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). The
record does not support Adame de la Rosa’s contention that the BIA failed to
consider evidence regarding his fear of torture. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, we deny the petition as to Adame de la
Rosa’s CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71218