Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CRUZ LORENZO CALMO, AKA Cruz Lorenzo, AKA Mario Mendoza, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
Cruz Lorenzo Calmo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that, even if Lorenzo Calmo established past persecution on account of his Mam ethnicity and familial relationship to his father, there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in Guatemala such that the government rebutted the presumption that his life or freedom would be threatened upon his return on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(A); see Gonzales-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency properly provided “an individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioner's situation”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Lorenzo Calmo's contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard is unpersuasive. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Lorenzo Calmo's claim for withholding of removal.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief because Lorenzo Calmo failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-72653
Decided: November 02, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)