Levi Cruz v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                          FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    AUG 25 2021
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LEVI ANTONIO CRUZ,                              No.    20-73608
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-316-053
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted August 17, 2021**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
    Levi Antonio Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for relief under the
    Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
    *
    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).
    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 in part and
    dismiss in part the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
    under CAT because Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not he would be
    tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
    Salvador. See Zheng v. Holder, 
    644 F.3d 829
    , 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility
    of torture too speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 
    600 F.3d 1148
    , 1152 (9th Cir.
    2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to
    meet standard for CAT relief). We lack jurisdiction to consider Cruz’s contention
    that the IJ erred in the analysis of his CAT claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not raised
    to the BIA).
    The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
    mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                  20-73608
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-73608

Filed Date: 8/25/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/25/2021