FIDADELFO CALDERON-CARILLO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73490 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FIDADELFO CEFERINO CALDERONCARILLO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73490 Agency No. A071-521-952 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Fidadelfo Ceferino Calderon-Carillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 * 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 IJ’s factual findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Calderon-Carillo failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Calderon-Carillo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37. We do not consider the materials Calderon-Carillo references for the first time in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to “the administrative record upon which the [removal] order is based”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-73490

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.