Juan De Loera Jimenez v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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
    JUAN DE LOERA JIMENEZ,                          No.    16-73485
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A044-125-516
    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.
    Juan de Loera Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing an appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal 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,
    Silaya v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1066
    , 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we dismiss in part and
    deny in part the petition for review.
    We lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez’s contention that the agency erred
    in determining that his criminal conviction constituted a particularly serious crime
    because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
    presented to the agency).
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
    under CAT because Jimenez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would
    be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
    Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 
    644 F.3d 829
    , 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of
    torture too speculative).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
    2                                   16-73485
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-73485

Filed Date: 4/13/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021