Crisoforo Garcia-Feria v. Loretta E. Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISOFORO ANSELMO GARCIA- No. 14-73412
FERIA,
Agency No. A205-005-133
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Crisoforo Anselmo Garcia-Feria, 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 protection
*
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).
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, Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013), and we
review de novo due process claims, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243,
1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Garcia-Feria’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
if returned to Mexico. See Blandino-Medina, 712 F.3d at 1348 (affirming denial
of CAT relief where the petitioner “merely presented a series of worst-case
scenarios”); Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (despite
troubling country report, record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner
would more likely than not be tortured). We reject Garcia-Feria’s contentions that
the BIA mischaracterized or failed to consider relevant evidence, failed to provide
a reasoned explanation for how it weighed the evidence, or applied an incorrect
legal standard to his claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(petitioner must establish error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73412