NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO BALDEMAR ROJAS-JIMENEZ, No. 19-73113
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-383-829
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Baldemar Rojas-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of
removal, 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
*
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).
questions of law and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Rojas-Jimenez’s contention that the agency should not have considered a
probable cause statement in denying cancellation of removal as a matter of
discretion is unpersuasive, where the agency properly weighed all evidence in the
record. See Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2012) (IJ must consider
“the record as a whole” when analyzing discretion); see also Matter of Thomas, 21
I. & N. Dec. 20, 23 (BIA 1995) (“In examining the presence of adverse factors on
an application for discretionary relief, this Board has found it appropriate to
consider evidence of unfavorable conduct, including criminal conduct which has
not culminated in a final conviction for purposes of the Act.”). We lack
jurisdiction to review Rojas-Jimenez’s remaining contentions regarding the
agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016)
(petitioner did not raise a reviewable issue because “he simply disagrees with the
agency’s weighing of his positive equities and the negative factors”).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rojas-Jimenez
did not establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted in Guatemala.
See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2001). As this determination
2 19-73113
is dispositive, we do not reach his contention that any harm he would suffer would
be on account of a protected ground. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where
Rojas-Jimenez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
To the extent Rojas-Jimenez requests that the court consider extra-record
evidence (Docket Entry No. 18), we deny this request. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the administrative record).
On February 27, 2020, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-73113