Rosendo Obregon-Luna v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSENDO OBREGON-LUNA, No. 17-71380
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-747-617
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rosendo Obregon-Luna, 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 denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
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.
Obregon-Luna has not shown an egregious circumstance that would warrant
withdrawal of his pleadings, where he failed to show that his prior counsel’s
performance was deficient. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 830-
32 (9th Cir. 2011) (absent egregious circumstances, an attorney’s admission or
concession is binding on an alien); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (to prevail on an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel
failed to perform with sufficient competence and that he was prejudiced by
counsel’s performance); Torres-Chavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1101-02 (9th
Cir. 2009) (counsel’s tactical decision was not ineffective assistance of counsel).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Obregon-Luna
failed to show changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application,
where he failed to show how the recent extortion of his brother materially affected
his eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Vahora v. Holder, 641
F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (an alien may qualify for an exception to the filing
deadline if he demonstrates the existence of changed circumstances which
materially affect his eligibility for asylum).
2 17-71380
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal, where Obregon-Luna failed to show a nexus to a protected ground. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under CAT,
where Obregon-Luna failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
The record does not support Obregon-Luna’s contention that the agency
failed to consider legal arguments or sufficiently explain its reasoning. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency must consider
the issues raised and express its decision “in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing
court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-71380