Jose Rosales v. Matthew Whitaker

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 20, 2018
Docket15-73136
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
Jose Rosales v. Matthew Whitaker, (9th Cir. 2018).

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

Bluebook (online)
Jose Rosales v. Matthew Whitaker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-rosales-v-matthew-whitaker-ca9-2018.