APOLINAR SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73110 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APOLINAR SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73110 Agency No. A200-824-287 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Apolinar Sanchez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that SanchezGonzalez failed to establish a nexus between any harm he fears in Mexico and a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus, Sanchez-Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of SanchezGonzalez’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73110

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.