SERGIO JACOBO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73232 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 24 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO JACOBO, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73232 Agency No. A206-407-614 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Sergio Jacobo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, GarciaMilian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and review de novo due process claims, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Jacobo failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity if returned to Mexico. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[a] government does not acquiesce in the torture of its citizens merely because it is aware of torture but powerless to stop it”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, we reject Jacobo’s contention that the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73232

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.