Jose De Jesus Lopez-Gomez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DE JESUS LOPEZ-GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70845
Agency No. A200-157-053
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose de Jesus Lopez-Gomez, 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 (“IJ”) 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
FEB 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70845
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under the CAT because Lopez-Gomez 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 Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(claims of possible torture were speculative); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054
(9th Cir. 2011) (country reports and credible testimony were insufficient to compel
conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured).
The BIA did not err in concluding the IJ did not violate Lopez-Gomez’s
right to due process by failing to consider evidence. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error and substantial prejudice are required to prevail
on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --