FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL LOPEZ-RUIZ, No. 13-74477
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-964-796
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Lopez-Ruiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Alcaraz
v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004), and we review for substantial
evidence the denial of CAT relief, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2008). We review for abuse of discretion a particularly serious crime
determination. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Lopez-Ruiz’s
conviction for committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14 years old
in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a) is a particularly serious crime under
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) that renders him ineligible for withholding of
removal. The agency applied the correct legal standard as set forth in Matter of N-
A-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336, 342 (BIA 2007), and properly considered the record of
conviction and Lopez-Ruiz’s testimony in making its determination. See Anaya-
Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency may consider all
reliable information in making a particularly serious crime determination). The
BIA did not err in declining to address Lopez-Ruiz’s contention that the IJ
improperly considered the police report, where the particularly serious crime
determination was supported by other evidence in the record. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). Lopez-Ruiz’s contentions that the
2 13-74477
BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding and failed to consider all of the evidence
are unsupported by the record.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief on the
ground that Lopez-Ruiz failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74477