BRYAN GARCIA VENTURA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71190 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRYAN RIGOVERTO GARCIA VENTURA, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71190 Agency No. A206-844-917 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* 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. Bryan Rigoverto Garcia Ventura, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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. MolinaMorales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if Garcia Ventura established membership in a cognizable social group, he failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. See id. at 1051-52 (personal dispute not grounds for asylum unless connected to a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to asylum. Respondent’s unopposed request to remand Garcia Ventura’s CAT claim to the agency to assess the impact of this court’s decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) is granted. Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 2 16-71190

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.