Domingo Nava Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOMINGO NAVA RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1553
Agency No. A078-440-086
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, WALLACH***, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Domingo Nava Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
FILED
JAN 3 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Nava Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.” (citing Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal
quotation marks omitted))).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --