The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
19-71109•ARMANDO MUNOZ RODRIGUEZ, AKA Armando Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
19-71109Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 25, 2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO MUNOZ RODRIGUEZ, AKA
Armando Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71109
Agency No. A092-433-225
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Armando Munoz Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of
removal 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
MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 19-71109
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Munoz Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009);
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible
torture speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“generalized evidence of violence and crime” was not particular to petitioners and
was insufficient to meet CAT standard).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.