NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL MAGANA MANZO, AKA Pule No. 16-71384
Moniker,
Agency No. A095-660-869
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Raul Magana Manzo, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for deferral of removal
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
*
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. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1694 (2020) (“[8 U.S.C.]
§§ 1252 (a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen’s factual
challenges to a CAT order.”). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Magana Manzo does not contend that the BIA erred in
finding he waived any challenge to the IJ’s determinations as to his removability,
or that his conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351(a) rendered him
ineligible for cancellation of removal, asylum, and withholding of removal. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding
petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in his
opening brief).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under
CAT because Magana Manzo 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish
the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
To the extent Magana Manzo contends the IJ applied an incorrect legal
standard in the analysis of acquiescence under CAT, we lack jurisdiction to
2 16-71384
consider the contention. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (concluding the court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the
agency). We reject as unsupported by the record Magana Manzo’s additional
contentions that the agency misapplied the law or otherwise erred in its analysis of
his deferral of removal under CAT claim.
Magana Manzo’s contention that the agency did not consider evidence fails.
See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[BIA] does not have
to write an exegesis on every contention”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding
petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
As stated in the court’s August 3, 2016 order, the stay of removal remains in
place until the issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-71384