United States v. 2020-06-10 | 19-71829 | OSBALDO FLORES-MONDRAGON V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSBALDO O. FLORES-MONDRAGON,
Mondragon Flores,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71829

Agency No. A072-258-519

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Osbaldo O. Flores-Mondragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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

JUN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71829
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Flores-Mondragon failed to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(possibility of torture too speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is
insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief).
We do not consider the materials attached to Flores-Mondragon’s opening
brief that were not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the
administrative record underlying the agency’s decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.