SANTIAGO OSORIO-AVILA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73073 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 23 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANTIAGO OSORIO-AVILA, AKA Santiago Osorio, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73073 Agency No. A098-569-680 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Santiago Osorio-Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection 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. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge Osorio-Avila makes to the IJ’s past persecution finding because he did not distinctly raise the issue to the BIA. Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring issue exhaustion). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Osorio-Avila failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution 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 OsorioAvila’s withholding of removal claim. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Osorio-Avila failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Mexican government if he is removed to Mexico. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of CAT relief where similarly-situated family member remained safely in hometown), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, we also deny the petition for review as to Osorio-Avila’s CAT claim. 2 14-73073 PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 14-73073
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.
