ROXANA SANCHEZ DE PORTILLO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-73499 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROXANA DEL CARMEN SANCHEZ DE PORTILLO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73499 Agency No. A099-534-118 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Roxana Del Carmen Sanchez de Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez de Portillo’s challenges to the IJ’s denial of her withholding of removal claim because she failed to exhaust this issue on appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we dismiss the petition for review as to Sanchez de Portillo’s withholding of removal claim. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Sanchez de Portillo failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she would be tortured by the government of Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence, if returned. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject her contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Sanchez de Portillo’s CAT claim. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 14-73499

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.