FRANKLIN BRENES-FLORES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-70618 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANKLIN OMAR BRENES-FLORES, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70618 Agency No. A208-204-027 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Franklin Omar Brenes-Flores, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Brenes-Flores failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (mistreatment motivated by retribution does not bear a nexus to a protected ground). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Brenes-Flores’s CAT claim because he has not shown it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of Guatemala or with its consent or acquiescence. See GarciaMilian, 755 F.3d at 1034-35. We reject Brenes-Flores’s contention regarding proceedings before the asylum officer and the IJ. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-70618

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.