The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-70113•Leslie Mirissage v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
14-70113Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 2, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESLIE MIRISSAGE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70113
Agency No. A095-686-366
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Leslie Mirissage, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
AUG 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 14-70113
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.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Mirissage failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Sri Lanka. See
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013). We reject
Mirissage’s contentions that the agency inadequately considered record evidence.
See id. at 1049 (BIA may use its expertise in considering country reports to decide
which portions are relevant). Thus, Mirissage’s claim for deferral of removal
under the CAT fails.
Finally, we do not consider materials attached to Mirissage’s opening brief
that were not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (review limited to the administrative record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.