JOSE RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71753 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 20 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, Petitioner, No. 13-71753 Agency No. A070-744-010 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jose Rodriguez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal because Rodriguez Lopez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in Mexico by police or drug cartel members. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future harm too speculative); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (claim of future persecution weakened when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident), superseded by statute on other grounds. Thus, we deny Rodriguez Lopez’s petition as to his withholding of removal claim. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Rodriguez Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, we deny Rodriguez Lopez’s petition as to his CAT claim. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-71753
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.
