Sarbelio Sagastume-Hueso v. Jefferson Sessions, II, No. 16-60264 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-60264 Document: 00514142419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60264 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 5, 2017 SARBELIO DE JESUS SAGASTUME-HUESO, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 988 315 Before DAVIS, PRADO, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sarbelio de Jesus Sagastume-Hueso, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Sagastume-Hueso contends that, in light of the IJ’s initial finding that he was eligible for CAT relief, the later entry of a contrary finding violated the “law of the case” doctrine. However, the BIA Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-60264 Document: 00514142419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2017 No. 16-60264 had not “decided” any issues regarding CAT relief but rather returned the record for a more complete decision because the IJ’s insufficient findings precluded meaningful review. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). The finding that Sagastume-Hueso did not suffer harm rising to the level of torture is supported by substantial evidence. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Though Sagastume-Hueso argues that the IJ failed to consider testimony that he was threatened and kicked, there is no evidence that this caused him “severe pain or suffering.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). He fails to show that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). The petition for review is DENIED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.