NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO JONATHAN MORENO, No. 18-72211
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-839-092
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Jonathan Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
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 deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Moreno failed to show 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
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
We reject Moreno’s contention that the BIA erred in its legal analysis or
ignored evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(the agency adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision).
We do not consider the materials Moreno references in his opening brief that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to “the administrative record upon
which the [removal] order is based” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
On July 31, 2019, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 18-72211