Hector Rodriguez Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch , 637 F. App'x 489 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR RODRIGUEZ GARCIA, No. 13-73463
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-420-129
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Hector Rodriguez Garcia, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193
(9th. Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez Garcia’s contentions regarding
his status as a Legal Permanent Resident because he failed to raise them before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). We also
lack jurisdiction to review the denial of withholding of removal because he failed
to raise any challenge to the IJ’s dispositive nexus determination before the BIA.
See id.Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rodriguez Garcia’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(finding the petitioners’ “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is
not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient” to show it more likely than not they
would be tortured if returned to Mexico). Thus, Rodriguez Garcia’s claim for
relief under CAT fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DIMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 13-73463