Angel Nicolas Colin Enzana v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGEL NICOLAS COLIN ENZANA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73848
Agency No. A099-579-787
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: BEA, PAEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Angel Nicolas Colin Enzana, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief 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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73848
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
Colin Enzana’s request for judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Colin Enzana’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Silaya,
524 F.3d at 1073; Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims
of possible torture were speculative). We reject Colin Enzana’s contentions that
the agency applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in its analysis.
Thus, his CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --