Case Summary
**Case Summary: Manuel Campos-Hernandez v. Jefferson Sessions**
**Docket Number:** 7835539
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date:** (Please specify if you need a specific date for the summary)
**Background:**
Manuel Campos-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought relief from removal by applying for a request for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Campos-Hernandez claimed that if returned to Mexico, he would face persecution based on his past experiences and threats to his life, particularly due to his perceived sexual orientation and association with individuals targeted by criminal organizations.
**Issue:**
The primary question before the court was whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred in denying Campos-Hernandez's applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection, particularly concerning the evaluation of credibility, evidence, and the likelihood of future harm.
**Court Findings:**
1. **Credibility Determination:** The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge's (IJ) finding that Campos-Hernandez's testimony was not credible due to inconsistencies in his account and his failure to corroborate his claims with sufficient evidence.
2. **Withholding of Removal:** The court analyzed whether Campos-Hernandez had a well-founded fear of persecution. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution based on a protected ground. The court found that Campos-Hernandez's evidence did not sufficiently establish that he would face persecution upon return to Mexico.
3. **Convention Against Torture:** Regarding CAT protection, the court examined whether Campos-Hernandez could demonstrate that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned. The court concluded that the evidence presented failed to meet the high threshold required for protection under CAT.
**Conclusion:**
The Ninth Circuit upheld the BIA's decision, ruling that Campos-Hernandez did not meet the necessary standards for withholding of removal or CAT protection. The court emphasized the importance of credibility in immigration proceedings and the substantial burden placed on applicants to prove their claims.
**Significance:**
This case underscores the challenges faced by individuals seeking asylum or humanitarian relief and highlights the rigorous standards that courts apply to credibility assessments, the requirement for corroborating evidence, and the strict criteria for proving eligibility for protection under international treaties.
**Note:** The information provided is a general summary based on the case details; specific legal arguments and nuances may require further analysis based on the full text of the court’s opinion.