EDUARDO RAMOS GUZMAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71726 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDUARDO RAMOS GUZMAN, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71726 Agency No. A098-267-324 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 11, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN,*** District Judge. Eduardo Ramos Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) * 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). *** The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and is therefore not entitled to relief from a reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833–36 (9th Cir. 2016). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Guzman failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would suffer future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “vague threats” do not support withholding of removal). Any past persecution that Guzman suffered was not on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Guzman failed to demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico if he were deported there. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (denying CAT claim because fear of torture was speculative). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71726
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.
