ERIKA ESPINOZA V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 18-70232 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ERIKA LIZETH ESPINOZA, AKA Ericka No. 18-70232 Lizeth Espinoza-Lopez, AKA Erika Lizeth Espinoza-Lopez, AKA Erica E. Lopez, AKA Agency No. A097-739-350 Erika Lopez, AKA Erika Espinoza Lopez, AKA Erika Lopez-Espinoza, MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Erika Lizeth Espinoza, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an * 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). immigration judge’s decision finding her ineligible for withholding of removal and denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly serious crime determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Espinoza’s conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 was a particularly serious crime rendering her ineligible for withholding of removal and concluding that Espinoza failed to rebut the presumption under Matter of Y-L-. See Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077 (“Our review is limited to ensuring that the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence to reach this conclusion.” (internal quotations omitted)); Matter of Y-L, A-G-, & R-S-R-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 276-77 (A.G. 2002) (drug trafficking offenses are presumptively particularly serious crimes). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Espinoza failed to show that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or 2 18-70232 with the acquiescence of the government of Honduras. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Espinoza’s contention regarding her prior removal in 2015. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-70232
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.
