JOSE SOTO-MONTANO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71343 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 10 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE SOTO-MONTANO, AKA Jose Montano, AKA Jose Soto, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71343 Agency No. A205-710-440 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Jose Soto-Montano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by * 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). Thus, we deny SotoMontano’s request for oral argument as set forth in his opening brief. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Soto-Montano failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1388, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of CAT where “rather than presenting hard evidence of a probability” of torture, petitioner “merely presented a series of worstcase scenarios.”). Soto-Montano’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights is unexhausted so we lack jurisdiction over this claim, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004), and his contentions that the IJ ignored evidence or erred in her analysis are unpersuasive. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Soto-Montano’s CAT claim. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-71343

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.