NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO AVALOS-YERERNAS, AKA No. 14-73655
Adam Estrada, AKA Israel Pardo,
Agency No. A088-700-039
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Armando Avalos-Yerernas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Avalos-Yerernas attached to his opening
brief that are not a part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
Before the BIA, Avalos-Yerernas did not challenge the IJ’s determination
that he was ineligible for withholding of removal and withholding of removal
under the CAT because he was convicted of a particularly serious crime. See
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 (d)(2). We therefore lack
jurisdiction to consider any challenge he now makes to that dispositive finding.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (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 Avalos-Yerernas failed to show it is more likely than not that
he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or
acquiescence. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1034-35. We reject Avalos-
2 14-73655
Yerernas’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to exercise its discretion.
Finally, Avalos-Yerernas’s challenge to his continued detention is not properly
before this court. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.
2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-73655