FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ, AKA No. 12-73749
Jose L. Ramos, AKA Jose Luis Ramos,
Agency No. A070-721-630
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jose Luis Ramos-Rodriguez seeks review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his
application for an adjustment of status and for protection under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction in part pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramos-Rodriguez’s petition for review of
the denial of his application for an adjustment of status because he fails to allege a
“colorable constitutional violation.” Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,
930 (9th Cir. 2005). As required by 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d), both the Immigration
Judge (IJ) and the BIA weighed the equities of Ramos-Rodriguez’s case before
declining to grant him a waiver of inadmissability, and therefore not did apply a
categorical rule in violation of his due process rights. Ramos-Rodriguez’s
remaining arguments on this issue are “abuse of discretion challenge[s] re-
characterized as . . . alleged due process violation[s].” Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales,
466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
We deny Ramos-Rodriguez’s petition for review of the denial of his
application for deferral of removal under CAT because, under the “substantial
evidence standard,” the evidence here does not “compel[] the conclusion” that the
IJ’s and the BIA’s decision that Ramos-Rodriguez failed to prove that he was more
likely than not to be tortured on account of his tattoos was erroneous. See Cordon-
Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The IJ gave “reasoned consideration” to all of the “highly probative or
2
potentially dispositive” evidence in the record, including the testimony of Dr.
Boerman and the No Place to Hide report, see Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772
(9th Cir. 2011), and the IJ “listened to the testimony [of Dr. Boerman] and stated
reasons in the record why the testimony was insufficient to establish the
probability of torture necessary to grant CAT relief,” Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder,
594 F.3d 701, 705 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010). Although Ramos-Rodriguez provided
evidence that he may be subjected to police misconduct due to his tattoos, “we are
unable to conclude that the IJ’s ruling that [such misconduct would] not amount to
torture was not supported by substantial evidence.” Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
1043, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006).
DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
3