Jose Ortiz-Fletes v. Jefferson Sessions , 694 F. App'x 545 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JESUS ORTIZ-FLETES, No. 14-73372
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-441-244
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 27, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Jose Jesus Ortiz-Fletes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d
1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012), and review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT
relief, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Ortiz-Fletes does not challenge in his opening brief the agency’s dispositive
determination that his 2003 conviction constitutes a presumptive particularly
serious crime that renders him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Accordingly, we need not reach this contention. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to make findings on issues
that are unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under the CAT on the grounds that Ortiz-Fletes failed to establish that it is more
likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of
the government if returned to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Zarate v.
Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Under the substantial evidence
standard, a petitioner can obtain reversal only if the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion.”).
2
Contrary to Ortiz-Fletes’ contentions, the agency considered appropriate
evidence, including his work as an informant, and applied the correct legal
standard in denying his application for relief under the CAT.
We do not consider the extra-record documents Ortiz-Fletes submitted. See
Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (our review is limited to
the administrative record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ortiz-Fletes’ unexhausted contentions that
the agency was required to consider the recommendations of the asylum office or
the prosecutor, and that he qualifies for a United States government program for
informants or other alternative forms of relief. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not
presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3