NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA NELY ZERMENO-RODRIGUEZ, No. 15-73683
AKA Rosa Nely Zermeno, AKA Rosa Nely
Zermeno Rodriguez, AKA Rosa Nely Agency No. A037-446-558
Zermo, AKA Rosa Zrmeno,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Nely Zermeno-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of
*
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).
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th
Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) to review the agency’s
discretionary determination that Zermeno-Rodriguez has been convicted of a
particularly serious crime that bars withholding of removal. See Pechenkov v.
Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 447-48 (9th Cir. 2012) (no jurisdiction to review
particularly serious crime determination where there is no assertion of legal or
constitutional error and the only challenge is that the IJ incorrectly weighed the
facts).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Zermeno-Rodriguez did not establish that it is more likely than not that she would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 15-73683