Freddy Martin Davila v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDDY MARTIN DAVILA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73577
Agency No. A078-054-504
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Freddy Martin Davila, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from
the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal
under CAT. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Blandino-Medina v. Holder,
712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Davila failed to
demonstrate it was more likely than not he would be subjected to torture if returned
to Nicaragua. See id. (upholding denial of CAT relief where petitioner presented a
series of worst-case scenarios rather than presenting hard evidence of a clear
probability of torture based on family’s previous association with the Somoza
regime); see also Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010)
(affirming denial of CAT relief where petitioner presented “no evidence” of a
likelihood of torture in Nicaragua.). We reject Davila’s attempts to distinguish
Blandino-Medina and Robleto-Pastora, and we reject his contention that the BIA
failed to consider his and his mother’s testimony.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73577 2

-- 2 of 2 --