ALFONSO REYES-CAMACHO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72393 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFONSO REYES-CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72393 Agency No. A200-695-118 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2016** Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGIA, Circuit Judges. Alfonso Reyes-Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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 review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Reyes-Camacho established extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely-filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to ReyesCamacho’s asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Camacho failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted if he returns to Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Reyes-Camacho’s withholding of removal claim. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Reyes-Camacho failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. Finally, we deny as unnecessary Reyes-Camacho’s renewed request for a stay of removal because the court previously granted a temporary stay of removal. 2 14-72393 The stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-72393
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.
