MARTIN MAGANA-PARDO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-71151 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 22 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTIN MAGANA-PARDO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71151 Agency No. A027-581-834 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Martin Magana-Pardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative). We reject Magana Pardo’s contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71151

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.