TOMAS TUFINO-PLUMA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71528 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TOMAS TUFINO-PLUMA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71528 Agency No. A205-710-547 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Tomas Tufino-Pluma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary * 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). departure. Our jurisdiction is 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). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tufino-Pluma failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and 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 . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, we deny the petition as to TufinoPluma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Tufino-Pluma failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2
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.
