CRISOFORO GARCIA-FERIA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73412 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRISOFORO ANSELMO GARCIAFERIA, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73412 Agency No. A205-005-133 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Crisoforo Anselmo Garcia-Feria, 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 protection * 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 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013), and we review de novo due process claims, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Garcia-Feria’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Blandino-Medina, 712 F.3d at 1348 (affirming denial of CAT relief where the petitioner “merely presented a series of worst-case scenarios”); Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (despite troubling country report, record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner would more likely than not be tortured). We reject Garcia-Feria’s contentions that the BIA mischaracterized or failed to consider relevant evidence, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how it weighed the evidence, or applied an incorrect legal standard to his claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must establish error to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73412
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.
