Martin Magana-Pardo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN MAGANA-PARDO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71151
Agency No. A027-581-834
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Martin Magana-Pardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he
did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to
relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under
* 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
JAN 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-71151
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings.
Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829,
835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative).
We reject Magana Pardo’s contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --