NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIRO E. MELENDEZ-IRAHETA, AKA No. 20-72557
Jairo Melendez,
Agency No. A044-471-286
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jairo E. Melendez-Iraheta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Melendez-Iraheta 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 El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009);
see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no
likelihood of torture). We reject as unsupported by the record Melendez-Iraheta’s
contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of
his claim.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Melendez-Iraheta’s contentions regarding
his removability because he did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2004)
(concluding the exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” decisions in
which the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without opinion).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 20-72557