JOSE HERNANDEZ JASSO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-71038 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 19 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE HERNANDEZ JASSO, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71038 Agency No. A017-178-699 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Hernandez Jasso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. 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, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, No. 13-74115, 2016 WL 3924013, at *4 (9th Cir. July 7, 2016), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Hernandez Jasso failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c), because the evidence demonstrates the criminals targeted Hernandez Jasso for money and he fears future targeting by unknown criminals, which does not support a finding for persecution on account of a protected ground, see Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We reject Hernandez Jasso’s contention that the IJ applied an incorrect legal standard. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Hernandez Jasso failed to establish a reasonable possibility that he would be tortured by the government of Mexico or with its consent or acquiescence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2013). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71038
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.
