NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED APR 3 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCO MONTOYA, AKA Marco No. 17-72293 Montaoya, AKA Marco Tulio Montoya Muncada, Agency No. A200-431-965 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 1, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: BEA and BADE, Circuit Judges, and Y. GONZALEZ ROGERS,*** District Judge. * 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 Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. Petitioner Marco Montoya (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. Petitioner argues the BIA erred in denying his application for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant Petitioner’s petition for review. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Petitioner testified credibly to past torture in Honduras by a gang that kidnapped, beat, and sexually assaulted him, and to credible extortion and death threats sent by the same gang to Petitioner at multiple homes as he moved to try to evade the gang. The IJ found Petitioner could not relocate anywhere in the country. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Petitioner’s expert witness Dr. Ungar was credible; he testified that the police in Honduras do not investigate extortion or kidnapping if the victim is released alive, and instead they allocate their limited resources to investigating murder. Dr. Ungar testified that the government of Honduras has attempted to combat gang violence and has reduced crime statistics for murder and drug trafficking, areas where they have focused their resources. However, the BIA determined that Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal under CAT, 2 because he had not shown that if he were returned to Honduras, he would more likely than not be tortured with the acquiescence of a public official. The court reviews the BIA’s decision in its entirety and the IJ’s decision to the extent it was adopted by the BIA. Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). The court reviews the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence means the factual finding is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). Under this standard, this court “may only reverse the agency’s determination where ‘the evidence compels a contrary conclusion from that adopted by the BIA.’” Parada v. Sessions, 902 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals