Josue Marin-Molina, a.k.a. Joshue Marin Molina v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

12-72617Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit30 de jun. de 2014

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSUE MARIN-MOLINA, a.k.a. Joshue
Marin Molina,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72617
Agency No. A078-085-700
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Josue Marin-Molina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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
FILED
JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition
for review.
Marin-Molina does not claim he was tortured in the past, but fears torture in
Mexico primarily due his grandfather’s anti-drug activities as municipal president
over 20 years ago, and because he has tattoos. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s denial of Marin-Molina’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v.
Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding the record did not
compel reversal of the agency’s denial of CAT where the petitioner’s claims of
possible torture remained speculative). We reject Marin-Molina’s contentions that
the agency ignored evidence, see Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th
Cir. 2006), or otherwise erred in analyzing his claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72617 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.