FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 16 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONIA RIVERA GONZALEZ, No. 17-70493
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-930-587
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Sonia Rivera Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from
the Immigration Judge’s decision denying withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the particularly serious crime
determination and review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT relief. Konou
v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo
questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining Gonzalez’s conviction
under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 is a particularly serious crime that renders her
ineligible for withholding of removal, where drug trafficking crimes are presumed
to be particularly serious and the agency relied on the appropriate factors and
proper evidence in concluding Gonzalez failed to rebut that presumption. See
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2); Miguel- Miguel v.
Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the “strong presumption
that drug trafficking offenses are particularly serious”); Avendano-Hernandez v.
Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (review limited “to ensuring that the
agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence” (internal quotations
omitted)). As this determination is dispositive, we do not reach Gonzalez’s
remaining contentions regarding her eligibility for withholding of removal. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, as
Gonzalez did not show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with
the acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3