NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILDARDO QUERO-QUERO, AKA No. 16-72514
Saterino Cobarybias,
Agency No. A200-149-682
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2018**
Seattle, Washington
Before: BLACK,*** TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Gildardo Quero-Quero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the Immigration
*
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).
***
The Honorable Susan H. Black, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and
protection 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 underlying its denial of relief. Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th
Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
because Quero failed to demonstrate a nexus between any alleged persecution and
his social group of family. See Matter of L-E-A, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 43-44 (BIA
2017) (explaining “[i]f the persecutor would have treated the applicant the same if
the protected characteristic of the family did not exist, then the applicant has not
established a claim on this ground”). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
denial of CAT relief because the record does not compel the conclusion that it is
more likely than not that Quero will be tortured at the instigation of, or with the
acquiescence of, the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing standard for CAT relief).
Accordingly, we deny Quero’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
2