Jorge Quiroz v. Loretta E. Lynch , 623 F. App'x 505 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE LUIS QUIROZ, No. 13-74382
Petitioner, Agency No. A014-658-739
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Luis Quiroz, 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 decision finding him removable and denying his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo questions of law, Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014), and
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Quiroz’s conviction under Nevada Revised Statutes § 201.230 is
categorically “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C § 1101(a)(43)(F) and is
therefore an aggravated felony. See Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062,
1065-66 (9th Cir. 2003). Contrary to Quiroz’s contention, his conviction
constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes. See United States v. Guerrero-
Velasquez, 434 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of protection under the CAT,
where Quiroz failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with
the consent, acquiescence or willful blindness of the government if removed to
Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Quiroz’s contention that the BIA erred in
denying CAT based in part on Quiroz’s failure to identify a particular government
2 13-74382
official whom he feared, where he failed to exhaust the claim before the BIA. See
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-74382