JUAN LOPEZ NAPOLES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-73887 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 15 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN LOPEZ NAPOLES, AKA Juan Napoles, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73887 Agency No. A070-146-317 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Juan Lopez Napoles, 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 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez Napoles did not establish the harm he experienced or fears was or will be on account of a protected ground. See id. at 1098 (quoting Matter of C-A-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 951, 958-59 (BIA 2006)) (“[I]f a former police officer [is] singled out for reprisal, not because of his status as a former police officer, but because of his role in disrupting particular criminal activity, he [is] not . . . considered, without more, to have been targeted as a member of a particular social group.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lopez Napoles failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See id. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-73887

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.