JOSE ESCOBAR V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-73904 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE JACOBO ESCOBAR, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73904 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-286-899 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2020** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jose Escobar seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which denied his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the denial of a motion to reopen for * 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). ** abuse of discretion, the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, and factual findings for substantial evidence. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Escobar’s untimely motion to reopen because he failed to establish a prima facie case for relief on his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. See id. For asylum and withholding of removal, Escobar has not shown that he was (or will be) persecuted due to “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (asylum); id. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal). For his CAT claim, Escobar has not shown how the new evidence of additional threats and the killing of the family’s dog make it more likely than not that he would be tortured upon his return to Honduras.1 See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2010). The petition for review is DENIED. 1 We have already denied Escobar’s prior untimely motion to reopen seeking CAT relief on a substantially similar record. See Escobar v. Lynch, 648 Fed. App’x 744 (9th Cir. 2016). 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.