OSCAR VELAZQUEZ-PRADO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-72157 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 7 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR SAUL VELAZQUEZ-PRADO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72157 Agency No. A205-464-594 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Oscar Saul Velazquez-Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 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 BIA did not err in finding that Velazquez-Prado failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim. Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of VelazquezPrado’s CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-72157

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.