RIGOBERTO RODRIGUEZ-GUTIERREZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71205 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIGOBERTO RODRIGUEZ-GUTIERREZ, AKA Rogoberto Rodriguez-Gutierrez, AKA Ruberto Rodriguez-Gutierrez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71205 Agency No. A095-286-683 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. Rigoberto Rodriguez-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for relief * 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). under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rodriguez-Gutierrez’s CAT claim because, even if credible, he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See id. at 1054 (record evidence insufficient to compel conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative). We do not address Rodriguez-Gutierrez’s contention regarding the IJ’s particularly serious crime finding because the BIA expressly declined to reach this finding. We reject Rodriguez-Gutierrez’s contention that the agency failed to consider record evidence. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71205

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.