JORGE LUNA-BAUTISTA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73249 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 24 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE ANTONIO LUNA-BAUTISTA, AKA Jorge Antonio Bautista, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73249 Agency No. A076-606-354 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. 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. Jorge Antonio Luna-Bautista, 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 withholding of removal and protection 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 for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Luna-Bautista failed to establish a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2008) (under the REAL ID Act, an applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central reason” for persecution). Thus, Luna-Bautista’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Luna-Bautista’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73249

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.