ALCARAZ OCHOA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-22No. No. 20-73006

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the petitioner failed to establish a likelihood of torture warranting deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.

Juan Alcaraz-Ochoa, a Mexican citizen, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding an immigration judge's denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Alcaraz-Ochoa argued that he faced a substantial risk of torture by Mexican government officials or with their involvement if returned to Mexico. The court examined whether the agency's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The court found that the evidence adequately supported the agency's conclusion that Alcaraz-Ochoa had not demonstrated it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government upon return. The court also rejected his argument that the BIA failed to consider relevant evidence or committed analytical errors in evaluating his torture claim.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supports denial of Convention Against Torture protection
Whether petitioner demonstrated likelihood of torture by government or with government acquiescence
Whether BIA adequately considered evidence and analyzed petitioner's claim

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of a BIA decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of Convention Against Torture relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Juan P. Alcaraz-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Alcaraz-Ochoa failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture). We reject as unsupported by the record Alcaraz-Ochoas contention that the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claim.

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.