Jose Rosales v. Matthew Whitaker
This text of Jose Rosales v. Matthew Whitaker (Jose Rosales v. Matthew Whitaker) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS ROSALES, No. 15-73136
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-977-168
v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 17, 2018 San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and EATON,** Judge.
Jose Luis Rosales (“Rosales”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing
his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his application
for 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. ** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. The BIA substantially relied upon the opinion of the Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) when denying CAT protection to Rosales. “Where, as here, the BIA adopts
the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.”
Hoque v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004).
2. The CAT provides protection to aliens who prove that they are more likely
than not to be tortured if they are removed to the proposed country of removal. 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Here, substantial evidence supported the IJ’s finding—
which was adopted by the BIA—that Rosales did not show that he is more likely
than not to be tortured if he is removed to El Salvador. Rosales had never been
tortured or threatened with torture in El Salvador, nor did he submit evidence
compelling the conclusion that he was likely to be subject to future torture in that
country.
DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jose Rosales v. Matthew Whitaker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-rosales-v-matthew-whitaker-ca9-2018.