DELBER PORTILLO-PORTILLO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-71806 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DELBER PORTILLO-PORTILLO, AKA Miguel Castillo, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-71806 Agency No. A070-032-807 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Delber Portillo-Portillo, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Portillo-Portillo does not challenge, and therefore waives, the BIA’s determination that his conviction pursuant to California Penal Code § 211 constitutes a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the CAT. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because PortilloPortillo did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture were speculative); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (country reports and credible testimony were insufficient to compel conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-71806
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.
