WILMER GARCIA-MORAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73802 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILMER GARCIA-MORAN, AKA Wilmer Garcia, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73802 Agency No. A072-525-542 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. Wilmer Garcia-Moran, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 * 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). 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), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Garcia-Moran failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that petitioner’s claims of possible torture were speculative and therefore did not compel reversal). We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia-Moran’s contention that he qualifies for relief based on his Americanized appearance or manners because he failed to present this claim to the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-73802

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.