eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-08

Maynor Galeano Orlando v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAYNOR GALEANO ORLANDO,                         No.    14-73161
Petitioner,                     Agency No. A043-706-805
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Maynor Galeano Orlando (“Galeano Orlando”), a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing Galeano Orlando’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying Galeano Orlando’s application for relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a), 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).
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition.
We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey,
    512 F.3d 1163
    ,
1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We review de novo our jurisdiction. Pena v. Lynch,
    815 F.3d 452
    , 455 (9th Cir.
2016).
We have jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Galeano Orlando’s
claim for deferral of removal under CAT because the IJ and BIA’s conclusion
denying CAT relief relied on the merits and not on Galeano Orlando’s aggravated
felony conviction. See Morales v. Gonzales,
    478 F.3d 972
    , 980 (9th Cir. 2007) (
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(C) does not deprive this court of jurisdiction to consider denial
of CAT relief when the IJ “does not rely on an alien’s conviction in denying CAT
relief and instead denies relief on the merits”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Galeano Orlando failed to show it is more likely than not he
will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder,
    589 F.3d 1040
    , 1047 (9th Cir. 2009);
see also Zheng v. Holder,
    644 F.3d 829
    , 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of
2                                   14-73161
torture too speculative). Galeano Orlando’s arguments to this court about internal
relocation in Guatemala or mental anguish were not exhausted before the BIA and
therefore we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
3                                   14-73161