Jose Rene Gomez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RENE GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-483
Agency No.
A094-461-768
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Rene Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming without opinion an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* 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
SEP 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-483
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral because
Gomez 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 El Salvador. See Zheng
v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“torture must be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity’”)
(internal citation omitted).
Gomez’s challenge to the BIA’s streamlining procedure fails. See Falcon
Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA’s streamlined
decision did not violate due process); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (error required to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate
issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --