David Peter PARRIS, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: April 14, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Morales, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Alfonso Morales P.C., Lynwood, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Brett F. Kinney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
David Peter Parris, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Parris failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Trinidad and Tobago. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
Parris’s contention that the agency violated due process by limiting his testimony fails. See Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018) (“an individual may obtain relief for a due process violation only if he shows that the violation caused him prejudice.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.