FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EPARAMA TUITOGALEVU MAU, No. 05-72765
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-890-332
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Eparama Tuitogalevu Mau, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order summarily affirming
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the IJ’s
particularly serious crime determination. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th
Cir. 2012). We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, id. at 385-
86, and review de novo due process claims and question of law, id. at 385 n.3. We
deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in determining that Mau’s conviction for
driving under the influence and causing bodily injury in violation of California
Vehicle Code § 23153(b) is a particularly serious crime rendering him ineligible
for withholding of removal. See id. at 385; 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The IJ
applied the proper legal standard as set forth in Matter of Frentescu, 18 I. & N.
Dec. Dec. 244 (BIA 1982), and did not err in considering the abstract of judgment
or evidence outside the record of conviction. See Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d
673, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (the agency may consider all reliable information in
making a particularly serious crime determination). Mau’s contentions that the IJ
should have applied the categorical approach, and that his conviction is not a crime
of violence are inapposite. See id. at 680.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of deferral of removal under the
CAT on the ground that Mau failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be
tortured if he returns to Fiji. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a); Arbid, 700 F.3d at 386.
2 05-72765
Mau’s due process claim regarding the BIA’s streamlining procedure is
foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003).
Mau’s claim that the IJ failed to follow relevant precedent is not supported by the
record.
Finally, we deny Mau’s renewed motion in his opening brief for
appointment of counsel.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 05-72765