CRISTOBAL SOSA AKA v. SESSIONS III (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Felix Cristobal Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Cristobal Sosa established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Cristobal Sosa’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cristobal Sosa failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted on account of membership in a particular social group or imputed political opinion. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (to qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate a likelihood of persecution on account of a protected ground); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (“To establish imputed political opinion, an applicant must show that his persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to him.”) (quotation and citation omitted). Thus, Cristobal Sosa’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cristobal Sosa failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.