Opinion
No. 15-71305
10-26-2017
RODULIO ADONAY PADILLA-SARMIENTO, AKA Rodulio Padilla Adonay, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A096-386-723 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rodulio Adonay Padilla-Sarmiento, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") and the motion to reconsider his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We review for abuse of discretion the agency's denial of a motion for reconsideration, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla-Sarmiento's motion to reconsider his asylum and withholding of removal claims because he failed to identify a legal or factual error in the agency's prior decision. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we deny the petition as to Padilla-Sarmiento's challenge to the agency's denial of his motion for reconsideration.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Padilla-Sarmiento's CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying CAT relief where the record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government). We reject Padilla-Sarmiento's contentions that the agency erred in its analysis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Padilla- Sarmiento's CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.