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.
FELIX ALVARADO FLORES, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
Felix Alvarado Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Alvarado Flores was both personally involved in and purposefully assisted persecution on account of political opinion, see Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2006), shifting the burden to him to prove that he was not a persecutor, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). Alvarado Flores failed to carry that burden. Thus, substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Alvarado Flores was ineligible for withholding of removal. See id. at 928-29 (persecutor bar applied where petitioner's actions were integral to furthering the persecution of others).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Alvarado Flores failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative).
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. 15-70716
Decided: December 22, 2017
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)