Jorge Tejeda-Espinosa v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE TEJEDA-ESPINOSA,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72987
Agency No. A201-179-108
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Tejeda-Espinosa, 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 torture in Mexico and thus is not entitled to relief
from a reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* 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
JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72987
review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch,
828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We review legal questions de novo. Pirir-Boc
v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Tejeda-Espinosa
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836
(“[a] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent
crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).
We reject as without merit Tejeda-Espinosa’s contentions that the IJ
mischaracterized his testimony, ignored his documentary evidence, or applied an
incorrect legal standard.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --