FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALCOTT EDMOND GRAY, AKA No. 15-70181
Walcoutt Gray, AKA Walcoutt E. Gray,
AKA Walcoutt Edmond Gray, Agency No. A024-199-183
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Walcott Edmond Gray, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his applications
*
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).
for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo questions of law, Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014), and
review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT relief, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency used the correct standard and did not err in determining Gray’s
drug trafficking offense is presumptively a particularly serious crime that renders
him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii);
Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A]n aggravated felony
containing a drug trafficking element is presumed to be a particularly serious crime
which would make [the applicant] ineligible for withholding of removal.”). To the
extent Gray challenges the agency’s determination that he has not rebutted that
presumption as a discretionary matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider that
contention. See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448-49 (“[8 U.S.C.]
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) cannot restore jurisdiction to review a ‘particularly serious crime’
determination where” the challenge is that the agency “incorrectly assessed the
facts”).
2 15-70181
The record does not support Gray’s contentions that the agency treated his
conviction as a per se category of particularly serious crime or that it did not
sufficiently address his contention regarding the legalization of marijuana in
certain states. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the
agency must consider the issues raised and express its decision “in terms sufficient
to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely
reacted” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under the CAT, where the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more
likely than not Gray will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if removed to Belize. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. Gray’s contention
that the agency ignored country condition evidence is not supported by the record.
See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990; Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011)
(the BIA is not required to “discuss each piece of evidence submitted”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-70181