Vicky Nikhil Pathak v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICKY NIKHIL PATHAK,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1893
Agency No.
A046-546-630
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Vicky Nikhil Pathak, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for deferral of removal
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
DEC 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-1893
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review questions of
law de novo. Id. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of deferral of removal under CAT
because petitioner 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 India. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829,
835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
The record does not support Pathak’s contentions that the IJ violated due
process by demonstrating bias, failing to consider all evidence and claims, or
otherwise erring in the analysis, or that the BIA applied the wrong standard of
review. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To
prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of
rights and prejudice.”); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision).
Because Pathak timely filed his reply brief, the motion to accept late filing
(Docket Entry No. 35) is denied as unnecessary.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --