JOLAN GURDON V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-70364 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOLAN GURDON, AKA Jessie Henson, AKA David Raymond, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70364 Agency No. A042-859-656 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jolan Gurdon, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 * 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). 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. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Gurdon failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if removed to Jamaica. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that the petitioner’s claims of possible torture were speculative and therefore did not compel reversal). Gurdon’s contention that the agency insufficiently considered his CAT claim is not supported by the record. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA is not required to “discuss each piece of evidence submitted”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70364

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.