Roberto Antonio Canales-Vasquez v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 19-14439 Date Filed: 11/22/2022 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-14439 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ROBERTO ANTONIO CANALES-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-315-173 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 19-14439 Date Filed: 11/22/2022 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 19-14439 Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Roberto Canales-Vasquez seeks review of the Board of Im- migration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). He further con- tends the IJ’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims was based on a failure to consider the totality of the circum- stances. We first address his CAT claim, then his arguments about asylum and withholding of removal. I. DISCUSSION A. CAT Claim We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the decision of the IJ. Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 2021). Factual determinations, including whether a noncitizen has established eligibility for CAT relief, are reviewed under the substantial evidence test. Lingeswa- ran v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278, 1293–94 (11th Cir. 2020); Ro- driguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013). To be eligible for CAT relief, an alien has the burden of showing that he will, more likely than not, be tortured if removed to his country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). In this context, “torture” means USCA11 Case: 19-14439 Date Filed: 11/22/2022 Page: 3 of 5 19-14439 Opinion of the Court 3 any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a per- son for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Id. § 208.18(a)(1). Government officials will be deemed to have ac- quiesced to torture only when they are aware of the activity con- stituting torture before such activity happens and then breach their legal responsibility to intervene to prevent it. Sanchez-Castro, 998 F.3d at 1288. The government does not acquiesce to torture where it attempts to combat the violence or other criminal activity, even if its attempts are unsuccessful. Id. (explaining even if the peti- tioner was correct in arguing the police were not effective in con- trolling gang …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals