FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTOBAL CAMPOS-AVALOS, No. 13-74279
Petitioner, Agency No. A034-010-706
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Cristobal Campos-Avalos, 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 denial of his applications for a waiver of
inadmissibility and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
*
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).
denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d
919, 921 (9th Cir. 2007), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny a
waiver under former INA § 212(c). Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 923 (citing 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). Although this Court retains jurisdiction to review
colorable questions of law or constitutional claims, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D),
Campos-Avalos’s contention that the agency failed to consider all the relevant
factors in exercising its discretion is not supported by the record. Mendez-Castro
v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2009). Campos-Avalos’s remaining
challenges to the agency’s discretionary decision are not colorable constitutional or
legal challenges that invoke our jurisdiction. See id.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief where
Campos-Avalos failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if he returned to Mexico. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721-22
(9th Cir. 2004).
2 13-74279
Campos-Avalos’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence
submitted with his motion to remand is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-74279