United States v. 2020-07-23 | 19-72548 | GUSTAVO PURECO CALDERON V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUSTAVO PURECO CALDERON, AKA
Gustavo Pureco,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-72548

Agency No. A090-082-799

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Gustavo Pureco Calderon, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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

*
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

JUL 23 2020

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

2 19-72548
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey,
512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not support Pureco Calderon’s contention that the agency
failed to consider country conditions evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the
BIA reviewed the record); see also Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885,
894 (9th Cir. 2018) (no indication agency did not consider all the evidence when
assessing CAT claim). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
denial of CAT relief because Pureco Calderon 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see
also 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).
Pureco Calderon’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No.1) is
denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.