FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS IGNACIO PALOMARES No. 14-73947
TORRES,
Agency No. A043-363-718
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Ignacio Palomares Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal and relief 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 denial of CAT relief, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and review de novo questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th
Cir. 2012). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where
Palomares Torres failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)-(3); Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
Palomares Torres does not challenge the agency’s determination that his
conviction for second-degree robbery in violation of California Penal Code § 211
is an aggravated felony theft offense, as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), that
renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Palomares Torres has likewise
waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that he is statutorily ineligible
for asylum. See id.; 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(B)(i).
Because Palomares Torres does not contest that he is removable for having
committed an aggravated felony, our jurisdiction over challenges to the agency’s
denial of withholding of removal is limited to colorable constitutional claims and
2 14-73947
questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d
444, 448-49 (9th Cir. 2012). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review Palomares
Torres’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that his conviction
constitutes a particularly serious crime that statutorily bars him from withholding
of removal. Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 448-49 (no jurisdiction over particularly
serious crime determination where the only challenge is that the agency
“incorrectly assessed the facts”).
Contrary to Palomares Torres’s contention, the agency applied the correct
legal standard by considering the relevant factors outlined in Matter of Frentescu,
18 I. & N. Dec. 244, 247 (BIA 1982), in making its particularly serious crime
determination, including the nature of and circumstances underlying his
conviction. See Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 679-80 (9th Cir. 2010).
Because these determinations are dispositive, we need not reach Palomares
Torres’s contentions regarding credibility.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73947