17-71348•United States v. 2020-04-14 | 17-71348 | DAVID PARRIS V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |
17-71348United States Court Of Appeals For The 9th Circuit14 de abr. de 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID PETER PARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71348
Agency No. A036-869-933
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020
**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
David Peter Parris, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
*
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
APR 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71348
findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We
review de novo claims of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770
F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Parris 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 Trinidad and Tobago.
See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture
too speculative).
Parris’s contention that the agency violated due process by limiting his
testimony fails. See Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018)
(“an individual may obtain relief for a due process violation only if he shows that
the violation caused him prejudice.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.