Jesus O. Gonzalez Figueroa v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS O. GONZALEZ FIGUEROA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73102
Agency No. A079-782-425
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jesus O. Gonzalez Figueroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)
that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and thus
is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. 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
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73102
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual
findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang
v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Gonzalez Figueroa
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Mexico on
account of a protected ground. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th
Cir. 2007) (petitioner had subjectively genuine fear of persecution, but failed to
establish individualized risk or a pattern and practice of persecution); Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too
speculative).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Gonzalez
Figueroa failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by the Mexican
government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at
836-37; Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible
torture too speculative).
We reject, as unsupported by the record, Gonzalez Figueroa’s contention
that the IJ violated his due process rights or otherwise erred in reviewing the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73102
asylum officer’s determination. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --