SANTOS FLORES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 13-74012 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 17 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANTOS ESTELA FLORES, AKA Estela Santos-Flores, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-74012 Agency No. A200-883-291 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Santos Estela Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). 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 in part, grant in part, and we remand. In her opening brief, Flores does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that her asylum application was untimely. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Thus, we deny the petition as to Flores’s asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Flores failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). As to withholding of removal, this court’s decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356-60 (9th Cir. 2017), came down after the BIA’s decision. Thus, we grant the petition for review as to withholding of removal, and remand this claim to the BIA to determine the impact, if any, of this decision. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 2 13-74012

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.