Juana Casillas Torres v. Matthew Whitaker

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUANA AMERICA CASILLAS TORRES, No. 18-70051

Petitioner, Agency No. A200-156-213

v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL 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.

Juana America Casillas Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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). We deny the petition.

Casillas Torres does not claim she suffered past persecution, and as to her fear of future harm, she did not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that she could safely relocate within Mexico. See Sung Kil Jang v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 1187, 1189 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, we deny the petition as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii), 1208.16(b)(2).

In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Casillas Torres’s CAT claim because she failed to show that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[G]eneralized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet this standard.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Footnotes

[2] 18-70051