Opinion
20-70942
07-12-2021
RUTH NUNEZ-CAMPOS, AKA Ruth Nunez-De Bayona, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 8, 2021 Pasadena, California
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A095-764-364
Before: WATFORD and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL, District Judge.
The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Ruth Nunez-Campos petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order upholding the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Nunez-Campos failed to meet her burden for obtaining protection under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief under CAT because Nunez-Campos failed to establish that her husband "would even bother to contact her, much less torture her," or that the Mexican government would acquiesce in any torture. Before us, Nunez-Campos contends that the agency failed to consider all evidence of torture, namely country conditions reports indicating the prevalence of domestic violence against women in Mexico. But the IJ adequately considered and discussed the country conditions evidence, and the "circumstances of [Mexican] women in general . . . do not vitiate the agency's specific findings" as to Nunez-Campos in particular. Dawson v. Garland, 998 F.3d 876, 885 (9th Cir. 2021). Nunez-Campos does not challenge the IJ's finding that she failed to establish that her husband would torture her, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. The agency thus properly denied her request for relief under CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.