DAVID VAZQUEZ-FIGUEROA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 14-72690 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID VAZQUEZ-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72690 Agency No. A205-052-835 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. David Vazquez-Figueroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). 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). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Vazquez-Figueroa 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 Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2019). As noted by the BIA, he bases his case on what has happened to his relatives who drive taxis in Acapulco, Mexico. However, he presented no evidence indicating that he would drive a taxi if he returned to Mexico or that taxi driving would be his only way to make a living. Moreover, being extorted for money does not constitute torture for purposes of CAT protection. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-72690

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.