Ngoli NYIRENDA, aka Ngoli Vukani Nyirenda, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-70105
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 22, 2016
659 F. App‘x 593
Argued and Submitted July 6, 2016 Pasadena, California
Vanessa Otero, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigrаtion Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: FERNANDEZ, CLIFTON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ngoli Nyirenda, a nativе and citizen of Zambia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigratiоn Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge‘s deсision that denied his application for deferral of removal undеr the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.
The government‘s argumеnt that Nyirenda‘s petition for review must be dismissed because it is untimely is without merit. Nyirenda timely filed his petition by depositing it in the Santa Ana City Jail‘s mailing system on Deсember 7, 2014. Nyirenda has submitted a declaration to that effect. The government argues that Nyirenda‘s declaration does not comply with
Turning to the merits, we rejeсt Nyirenda‘s argument that the BIA applied incorrect legal standards in rеviewing his claim for deferral of removal under CAT. There is nothing in the BIA‘s opinion suggesting that it viewed either being specifically targeted for torture or the existence of gross, flagrant, or mass violations in Zambia as dispоsitive. The BIA discussed these issues as relevant factors, as they are under
Nyirenda‘s argument that the BIA applied an incorrect standard by considering whether he had shown gross, flagrant, or mass violations of the rights of LGBT pеrsons specifically, rather than of human rights generally, was sufficiently raisеd before the agency, see Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 2006), but does not afford Nyirenda relief. The BIA cited the correct standard in its opinion and discussed violations оf the rights of LGBT persons specifically to determine whether Nyirenda had presented evidence demonstrating a particularized risk. Nyirenda did not argue that he was at risk for another reason.
Contrary to the gоvernment‘s contention, Nyirenda exhausted his argument that evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture was not considered. On the merits, however, the argument fails. Nyirenda has not demonstrated that the BIA misstated the record, failed to “mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence,” or that the BIA opinion otherwise indicates that rеlevant evidence was ignored or overlooked. Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011).
Lastly, substantial еvidence supports the BIA‘s determination that Nyirenda is not entitled to CAT rеlief. Nyirenda has not shown that “it is more likely than not” that
PETITION DENIED.