NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LANDA, AKA Jose Iturbide Landa, No. 17-73024
Petitioner, Agency No. A090-199-473
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Jose Landa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
Because Landa was found removable due to his conviction for a crime
involving moral turpitude, our jurisdiction to review the agency’s particularly
serious crime determination is limited to colorable constitutional claims and
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).
The agency did not err or violate due process in relying on the police report
relating to Landa’s conviction for assault with attempt to commit rape under
California Penal Code § 220, where Landa failed to establish that it was inaccurate
or unreliable. See Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (all
reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime
determination); Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (the opponent of
a government record bears the burden of showing it is unreliable) (internal citation
omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show
error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We reject
Landa’s contention that he was entitled to cross-examine the officer who prepared
the police report, where he did not challenge the contents of the report before the
2 17-73024
IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311 (aliens in deportation
proceedings may not assert a cross-examination right to prevent the government
from establishing uncontested facts). To the extent Landa contends the agency
ignored evidence or argument, the record does not support this contention.
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). We lack further
jurisdiction over Landa’s challenge to the agency’s weighing of factors in its
particularly serious crime determination. See Avendando-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800
F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (court may not reweigh the evidence and reach its
own determination about the crime’s seriousness); Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 448-49.
Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); 1231(b)(3)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where
Landa failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of a government official in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1); Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 17-73024