Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9457115
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nava Rodriguez v. Garland
No. 9457115 · Decided January 3, 2024
No. 9457115·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
January 3, 2024
Citation
No. 9457115
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 3 2024
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOMINGO NAVA RODRIGUEZ, No. 22-1553
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-440-086
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, WALLACH***, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Domingo Nava Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Nava Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of
torture too speculative); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.” (citing Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal
quotation marks omitted))).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2
Plain English Summary
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 3 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
Key Points
01FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 3 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOMINGO NAVA RODRIGUEZ, No.
03On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA, WALLACH***, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
04Domingo Nava Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provi
Frequently Asked Questions
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 3 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Nava Rodriguez v. Garland in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on January 3, 2024.
Use the citation No. 9457115 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.