United States v. 2020-03-11 | 18-70344 | JUAN FONSECA-MARTINEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARLOS FONSECA-MARTINEZ,
AKA Armando Fonseca, AKA Carlos
Fonseca Martinez, AKA Juan Martinez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-70344

Agency No. A090-058-960

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Fonseca-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

*
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 11 2020

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

2 18-70344
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We “review for abuse of discretion whether
the BIA clearly departs from its own standards.” Mejia v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 1118,
1121 (9th Cir. 2017). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s competency
determination. See Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding
no abuse of discretion when petitioner “did not show an inability to answer
questions or a high level of distraction”); Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474,
477 (BIA 2011). The record does not support any argument that the agency failed
to comply with the procedures mandated by the permanent injunction entered in
Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. CV-10-02211 DMG (DTBx), 2013 WL 8115423
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013), and its implementing order, Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder,
No. CV-10-02211 DMG (DTBx), 2014 WL 5475097 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2014).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Fonseca-Martinez 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) (denying CAT relief where
possibility of torture was too speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.