From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sandoval-Nunez v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 19, 2018
No. 14-73503 (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)

Opinion

No. 14-73503

06-19-2018

AIDE SANDOVAL-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A096-107-751 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 4, 2018 Seattle, Washington Before: BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON, District Judge.

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).

The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. --------

After the Department of Homeland Security ordered that Petitioner Aide Sandoval-Nunez be removed to her native country of Mexico, Sandoval-Nunez applied for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17 (2018). The immigration judge ("IJ") denied her application, and Sandoval-Nunez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which dismissed her appeal. Sandoval-Nunez now petitions this Court for review of the BIA's dismissal, seeking remand or, alternatively, reversal.

1. Sandoval-Nunez's request for remand is denied. In Maldonado v. Lynch, we held that an applicant does not bear a burden of demonstrating that relocation within the proposed country of removal is impossible because the IJ must consider all relevant evidence and no one factor is determinative. 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015). By considering the ability to relocate as only one of many factors pertinent to whether "it is more likely than not that [Sandoval-Nunez] will be tortured if removed" to Mexico, the BIA's decision in this case complied with the principles of Maldonado. Id.

2. The BIA did not violate Sandoval-Nunez's due process rights by failing to explicitly address legal arguments advanced on appeal to the BIA. The BIA "adopt[ed] and affirm[ed] the decision of the [IJ]," expressed no disagreement with any part of the IJ's decision, and cited to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). This signified that the BIA "had conducted an independent review of the record and had exercised its own discretion in determining that its conclusions were the same as those articulated by the IJ." Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the BIA did not err by summarily rejecting Sandoval-Nunez's arguments.

3. Substantial evidence supports denial of Sandoval-Nunez's application for deferral under CAT. Sandoval-Nunez argues the BIA and IJ failed to consider evidence that she would be tortured due to her sexual orientation or by individuals who abused her as a child or the Sinaloa cartel. Accepting Sandoval's testimony as truthful, the record does not compel a finding that Sandoval-Nunez is more likely than not to be tortured at the "acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity" if removed to Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Sandoval-Nunez v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 19, 2018
No. 14-73503 (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)
Case details for

Sandoval-Nunez v. Sessions

Case Details

Full title:AIDE SANDOVAL-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 19, 2018

Citations

No. 14-73503 (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)