Nava Rodriguez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 3, 2024
• Docket: 22-1553
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 3 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOMINGO NAVA RODRIGUEZ, No. 22-1553

Petitioner, Agency No. A078-440-086

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA, WALLACH***, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Domingo Nava Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection 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. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Nava Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of

torture too speculative); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he

possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not

prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial

evidence.” (citing Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal

quotation marks omitted))).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.