- Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
- Area(s) of Law: Immigration
- Date Filed: 10-31-2022
- Case #: 20-72138
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Miller, C.J., for the Court; Kleinfeld, C.J.; & Miller, C.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner was brought to the United States at 8 months old and removed 22 years later following a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon. Petitioner has re-entered the U.S. twice. Petitioner applies for asylum, stay of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Aliens convicted of “particularly serious crimes” are not eligible for withholding removal or asylum. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). A “particularly serious crime” is a discretionary determination made by weighing multiple factors. See Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curium) (listing factors to weigh). The content of government documents is presumptively reliable. Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995). Petitioner made no attempt to rebut the contents of the government form the immigration judge used to determine Petitioner’s crime was “particularly serious.” Applicants for protection under CAT must show “it is more likely than not that [they] would be tortured if removed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The harms Petitioner suffered previously do not amount to torture, because there were no “serious injuries or long-term harm.” Additionally, the lower court’s determined that, in the aggregate, Petitioner is not likely to be tortured in the future. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706 (9th Cir. 2022); Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland, 38 F.4th 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2022). Petition denied.