HIRVYN RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-70715 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HIRVYN EMERSON RODRIGUEZPEREZ, AKA Hirvyn Rodriguez, No. 13-70715 Agency No. A073-413-584 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 10, 2016** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,*** Chief District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable William E. Smith, United States Chief District Judge the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation. Hirvyn Emerson Rodriguez-Perez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition. 1. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012). 2. Nothing in the record compels a conclusion contrary to that of the Immigration Judge. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary . . . .”); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). Rodriguez’s suggestion that the Immigration Judge failed to give appropriate consideration to evidence that Rodriguez would be beaten or killed upon returning to El Salvador is without merit as the Immigration Judge specifically took such evidence into account. Decision of the Immigration Judge, p.10. Rodriguez’s own expert witness opined that, after the gang truce in El Salvador, overall violence, including beatings and killings, has gone down. 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.