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.
Jose Ascension SANCHEZ-MENDIVIL, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Jose Ascension Sanchez-Mendivil, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), as well as his request for voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part Sanchez-Mendivil’s petition.
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings regarding Sanchez-Mendivil’s claim for relief under CAT. Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019). We determine that he has not presented evidence to compel a decision in his favor. Though members of his family suffered violence at the hands of gangs, Sanchez-Mendivil testified that he has never been threatened or harmed by anyone in Mexico. This testimony does not demonstrate that he is likely to face torture upon his return, much less that the Mexican government would acquiesce in any such torture. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that speculative claims of torture are insufficient to afford relief).
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination, made by the IJ and adopted by the BIA, that Sanchez-Mendivil is ineligible for voluntary departure due to the adverse factors of his prior convictions outweighing any positive factors. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Thank you for your feedback!
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. 15-71614
Decided: August 23, 2019
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)