Ricardo Flores-Vasquez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO FLORES-VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72918
Agency No. A079-660-046
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Flores-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief 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
NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72918
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
The agency found Flores-Vasquez established past persecution, but his
presumption of future persecution was rebutted with evidence that Flores-Vasquez
could safely and reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid harm. Substantial
evidence supports this finding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Gonzalez-Hernandez v.
Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal relocation finding supported
where the record showed petitioner had safely relocated from his hometown for
“several months”). We reject Flores-Vasquez’s contentions that the agency erred
in its analysis. Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Flores-Vasquez’s CAT
claim because Flores-Vasquez did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he
would be tortured in Mexico by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --