NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EFRAIN RAMIRO ROMERO, No. 20-72300
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-900-374
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Efrain Ramiro Romero, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for deferral of removal
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 substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754
F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under the CAT because Romero 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
Colombia. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
Romero’s contentions that the IJ failed to consider all relevant evidence and
misstated facts fail as unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency need not write an exegesis on every
contention); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 20-72300