CARLOS DE LA ROCA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71424 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS HUMBERTO DE LA ROCA, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-71424 Agency No. A092-294-108 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Carlos Humberto de la Roca, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 118485 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that de la Roca failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future 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 de la Roca’s contention that the agency inadequately addressed his claim. Thus, de la Roca’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010). Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of de la Roca’s CAT claim because the record does not compel a finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government or with its consent or acquiescence upon his return to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-71424
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.
