BARBARA RUIZ-VELASCO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-70884 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARBARA RUIZ-VELASCO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70884 Agency No. A079-762-182 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Barbara Ruiz-Velasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, * 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). Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. We do not consider the materials attached to Ruiz-Velasco’s opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 96364 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Ruiz-Velasco failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Ruiz-Velasco failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37. We reject Ruiz-Velasco’s contentions regarding the conduct of her hearing. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“An immigration decision violates due process if the proceeding were so fundamentally unfair that the [petitioner] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” (internal citation and quotation omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70884

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.