JUAN ARIAS-GONZALEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-70205 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN JOSE ARIAS-GONZALEZ, AKA Juan Carlos Castaneda, AKA Luis GarciaRodriguez, AKA Juan Amar Gutierrez, AKA Jonthon Mandiville Osuna, AKA Miguel Angel Portillo, AKA Diego Saradegui, AKA Diego Emillio Saradegui, AKA Diego Saradegui-Torres, AKA Jose Lozano Zamora, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70205 Agency No. A078-461-371 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Juan Jose Arias-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for * 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). review of the Board of Immigrations 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 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. As to withholding of removal, even if the evidence compels a finding that the harm in 1994 rose to the level of persecution, the record does not adequately demonstrate a likelihood of future persecution as of the time of the hearing. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future harm “too speculative”). As to CAT relief, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Arias-Gonzalez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Ecuador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70205

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.