NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR ORLANDO DIAZ, No. 17-71572
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-483-948
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Orlando Diaz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Diaz’s contentions regarding particular
social groups, past persecution, and nexus that he raises for the first time in his
opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, we dismiss
the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government of Honduras. See Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject Diaz’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights.
See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 997 (9th Cir. 2008) (the BIA is “not
required to search the record to tease out claims that [a petitioner has] not clearly
made”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 17-71572