NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL AURELIO MARTINEZ No. 18-72847
COVARRUBIAS,
Agency No. A027-618-090
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Aurelio Martinez Covarrubias, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 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 review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Martinez Covarrubias’s
CAT claim because he did not 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 id. at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the
necessary state action for CAT relief); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th
Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600
F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in
Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility
for CAT relief).
Martinez Covarrubias’s contentions that the agency violated his due process
rights or that the IJ was biased are unpersuasive. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
2 18-72847
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72847