NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIX CRISTOBAL SOSA, AKA Felix No. 16-71776
Cristobalsosa,
Agency No. A086-950-949
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 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Felix Cristobal Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
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.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Cristobal Sosa established
changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Cristobal Sosa’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cristobal Sosa
failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted on account of
membership in a particular social group or imputed political opinion. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.
2011) (to qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate a
likelihood of persecution on account of a protected ground); Molina-Estrada v.
INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (“To establish imputed political opinion,
an applicant must show that his persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to
him.”) (quotation and citation omitted). Thus, Cristobal Sosa’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
2 16-71776
because Cristobal Sosa failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
if returned to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico was not particular to
the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-71776
Felix Cristobal Sosa v. Jefferson Sessions, III
Combined Opinion