RICARDO CHAVEZ-FLORES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-71227 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO CHAVEZ-FLORES, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-71227 Agency No. A205-320-736 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Chavez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for the review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Chavez-Flores established extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, we deny the petition as to Chavez-Flores’ asylum claim. The BIA denied Chavez-Flores’ withholding of removal claim on the ground that Chavez-Flores could relocate within Mexico. Substantial evidence supports this finds. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (b)(3); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003) (substantial evidence supported finding that presumption of future persecution was rebutted). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Chavez-Flores’ withholding of removal claim. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of ChavezFlores’ CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71227
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.
