RICARDO FLORES-VASQUEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-72918 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO FLORES-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72918 Agency No. A079-660-046 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Flores-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. The agency found Flores-Vasquez established past persecution, but his presumption of future persecution was rebutted with evidence that Flores-Vasquez could safely and reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid harm. Substantial evidence supports this finding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal relocation finding supported where the record showed petitioner had safely relocated from his hometown for “several months”). We reject Flores-Vasquez’s contentions that the agency erred in its analysis. Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Flores-Vasquez’s CAT claim because Flores-Vasquez did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured in Mexico by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-72918
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.
