NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ARENAS-LOPEZ, No. 13-74125
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-733-930
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 17, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Luis Arenas-Lopez appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) determination that Arenas-Lopez failed to meet his burden of proof for
deferral under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and affirmance of the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny Arenas-Lopez’s motion to continue.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.
Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.
To prove eligibility for withholding of removal under CAT, Arenas-Lopez
must establish that it is “more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if
removed” to Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The torture must be inflicted “by
or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.” Id.
§ 1208.18(a)(1). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Arenas-
Lopez, as a former police officer, did not present evidence that “similarly-situated
individuals” are subject to torture in Mexico. Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712
F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013). Nor did he present evidence that his suggested
chain of events (i.e., that he would be recognized nearly twelve years later, the
cartels would recruit him, he would refuse, and they would punish him for so
refusing) is more than speculation. See id. (affirming the denial of CAT relief
when petitioner relied on “a series of worst-case scenarios”).
Because Arenas-Lopez is convicted of a qualifying offense, we are limited
to reviewing his other claim for legal or constitutional error. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D); Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 410 (9th Cir. 2009). To the
extent Arenas-Lopez raises due process challenges to the denial of his motion to
continue his hearing, they fail. Although Arenas-Lopez was not able to submit his
2
supporting documentation by the hearing date, the IJ allowed him to submit those
documents within one week of the hearing. Additionally, Arenas-Lopez asserts
that his wife’s testimony would have “corroborate[d] the kidnapping and torture of
the petitioner as well as the extent of his injuries.” Since the Board accepted as
true Arenas-Lopez’s allegations of previous torture, Arenas-Lopez was not
prejudiced because his wife did not testify. Colmenar v. Immigration &
Naturalization Serv., 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION DENIED.
3