FLOR MARIA CARRASCO, AKA Flor Mancillas-Rosas v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOR MARIA CARRASCO, AKA Flor
Mancillas-Rosas,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72519
Agency No. A073-870-152
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 9, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Flor Maria Carrasco petitions for review of a final order of removal from the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of Carrasco’s application for deferral of removal under the
FILED
APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
deny the petition.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Carrasco is more likely than
not to be tortured in Mexico for having received a reduced sentence on her 2007
drug conviction. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en
banc) (“We must uphold the BIA’s determination unless ‘the evidence not only
supports, but compels the conclusion that the . . . decision was incorrect.’”); 8
C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.17(a) (requiring applicant for deferral of removal to
prove that torture is more likely than not). Nor does the record compel the
conclusion that any such torture would be accomplished with the consent or
acquiescence of someone acting in an official capacity. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1). The record of Carrasco’s sentencing does not indicate that she
was given a reduced sentence because she cooperated with prosecutors, but rather
because of a potential disparity with her co-defendant’s sentence. Carrasco
presented no specific evidence to the IJ that anyone in Mexico has threatened her
or is even aware of the fact that she received a reduced sentence. Without non-
speculative evidence of a risk of torture, Carrasco did not satisfy her burden to
prove that she is more likely than not to be tortured. See Matter of M-B-A-, 23 I &
N Dec. 474, 479–80 (BIA 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --