RAMON MIRAMONTES-AVILA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-73153 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMON ALBERTO MIRAMONTESAVILA, AKA Francisco Luna Lopez, AKA Martin Lopez-Aros, AKA Francisco Martinez-Lopez, AKA Franciso Luna Martinez-Lopez, AKA Ramon Miramontes, AKA Ramon Alberto Miramontes, AKA Ramon Miramontes-Avila, AKA Ramon Miramontes-Ceballos, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-73153 Agency No. A092-438-104 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Ramon Alberto Miramontes-Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from * 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). an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MiramontesAvila failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 2015) (substantial evidence supported denial of deferral of removal under CAT where petitioner failed to show more likely than not he would be subjected to torture upon return); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico not particular to petitioners was insufficient to establish CAT relief). Miramontes-Avila’s contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-73153
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.
