Rodulio Padilla-Sarmiento v. Jefferson Sessions

Ninth Circuit

Rodulio Padilla-Sarmiento v. Jefferson Sessions

699 F. App'x 712

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 2017

Docket15-71305

StatusUnpublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 712 (Rodulio Padilla-Sarmiento v. Jefferson Sessions) 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

Rodulio Padilla-Sarmiento v. Jefferson Sessions, 699 F. App'x 712 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rodulio Adonay Padilla-Sarmiento, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the motion to reconsider his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla-Sarmiento’s motion to reconsider his asylum and withholding of removal claims because he failed to identify a legal, or factual error in the agency’s prior decision. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we deny the petition as to Padilla-Sarmiento’s challenge to the agency’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Padilla-Sarmiento’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying CAT relief where the record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government). We reject Padilla-Sarmien-to’s contentions that the agency erred in its analysis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Padilla-Sarmiento’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rodulio Adonay Padilla-Sarmiento, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the motion to reconsider his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla-Sarmiento’s motion to reconsider his asylum and withholding of removal claims because he failed to identify a legal, or factual error in the agency’s prior decision. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we deny the petition as to Padilla-Sarmiento’s challenge to the agency’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Padilla-Sarmiento’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying CAT relief where the record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government). We reject Padilla-Sarmien-to’s contentions that the agency erred in its analysis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Padilla-Sarmiento’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 F. App'x 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodulio-padilla-sarmiento-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack