Ortega-Vazquez v. Sessions
Decision Date | 18 May 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 13-74116,No. 13-72795,13-72795,13-74116 |
Parties | SIMON ORTEGA-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM*On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Simon Ortega-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") (no. 13-72795), and theBIA's order denying his motion to reopen (no. 13-74116). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings and we review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petitions for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Ortega-Vazquez failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) ( )(citation omitted); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) ( ). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Ortega-Vazquez otherwise failed to establish that any harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) ( ); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( ). Thus, Ortega-Vazquez's withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Ortega-Vazquez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 ( ).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortega-Vazquez's motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) ( ); see also Partap v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1173, 1175 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial