Jose Ramos-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Jose Ramos-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch

606 F. App'x 350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2015

Docket12-73749

StatusUnpublished

This text of 606 F. App'x 350 (Jose Ramos-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jose Ramos-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch, 606 F. App'x 350 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Jose Luis Ramos-Rodriguez seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for an adjustment of status and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction in part pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramos-Rodriguez’s petition for review of the denial of his application for an adjustment of status because he fails to allege a “color-able constitutional violation.” Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). As required by 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d), both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA weighed the equities of Ramos-Rodriguez’s case before declining to grant him a waiver of inadmissability, and therefore not did apply a categorical rule in violation of his due process rights. Ramos-Rodriguez’s remaining arguments on this issue are “abuse of discretion ehal-lenge[s] re-characterized as ... alleged due process violation[s].” Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam).

We deny Ramos-Rodriguez’s petition for review of the denial of his application *351 for deferral of removal under CAT because, under the “substantial evidence standard,” the evidence here does not “compelí ] the conclusion” that the IJ’s and the BIA’s decision that Ramos-Rodriguez failed to prove that he was more likely than not to be tortured on account of his tattoos was erroneous. See Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). The IJ gave “reasoned consideration” to all of the “highly probative or potentially dispos-itive” evidence in the record, including the testimony of Dr. Boerman and the No Place to Hide report, see Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir.2011), and the IJ “listened to the testimony [of Dr. Boer-man] and stated reasons in the record why the testimony was insufficient to establish the probability of torture necessary to grant CAT relief,” . Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 n. 7 (9th Cir.2010). Although Ramos-Rodriguez provided evidence that he may be subjected to police misconduct due to his tattoos, “we are unable to conclude that the IJ’s ruling that [such misconduct would] not amount to torture was not supported by substantial evidence.” Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir.2006).

DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Jose Luis Ramos-Rodriguez seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for an adjustment of status and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction in part pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramos-Rodriguez’s petition for review of the denial of his application for an adjustment of status because he fails to allege a “color-able constitutional violation.” Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). As required by 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d), both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA weighed the equities of Ramos-Rodriguez’s case before declining to grant him a waiver of inadmissability, and therefore not did apply a categorical rule in violation of his due process rights. Ramos-Rodriguez’s remaining arguments on this issue are “abuse of discretion ehal-lenge[s] re-characterized as ... alleged due process violation[s].” Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam).

We deny Ramos-Rodriguez’s petition for review of the denial of his application *351 for deferral of removal under CAT because, under the “substantial evidence standard,” the evidence here does not “compelí ] the conclusion” that the IJ’s and the BIA’s decision that Ramos-Rodriguez failed to prove that he was more likely than not to be tortured on account of his tattoos was erroneous. See Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). The IJ gave “reasoned consideration” to all of the “highly probative or potentially dispos-itive” evidence in the record, including the testimony of Dr. Boerman and the No Place to Hide report, see Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir.2011), and the IJ “listened to the testimony [of Dr. Boer-man] and stated reasons in the record why the testimony was insufficient to establish the probability of torture necessary to grant CAT relief,” . Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 n. 7 (9th Cir.2010). Although Ramos-Rodriguez provided evidence that he may be subjected to police misconduct due to his tattoos, “we are unable to conclude that the IJ’s ruling that [such misconduct would] not amount to torture was not supported by substantial evidence.” Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir.2006).

DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 F. App'x 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-ramos-rodriguez-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack