ARMANDO RUBIO-RAUDA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-70911 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO DE JESUS RUBIO-RAUDA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70911 Agency No. A027-404-577 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Armando De Jesus Rubio-Rauda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against * 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). Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rubio-Rauda failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador was or would be on account of a protected ground. See id. at 1016 (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). The BIA did not err by declining to consider the proposed social group Rubio-Rauda raised for the first time on appeal. See Matter of J–Y–C–, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) (issues not raised to the IJ are not properly before the BIA on appeal). Thus, Rubio-Rauda’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rubio-Rauda failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-70911

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.