Jose Antonio Lujan-Lujan v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO LUJAN-LUJAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70736
Agency No. A200-188-051
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Lujan-Lujan, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70736
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d
1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We do not consider the factual allegations Lujan-Lujan raises for the first
time on appeal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the
court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lujan-Lujan’s contention as to humanitarian
asylum because he never raised this claim to the agency. See Sola v. Holder, 720
F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (court lacks jurisdiction to review issues or claims
not presented to the agency). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Lujan-Lujan’s
challenges to the IJ’s particularly serious crime determination and withholding of
removal because, as the BIA found, he failed to challenge these findings on appeal.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must
exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lujan-Lujan failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon
his return to Mexico, either by the Mexican government or with its consent or

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70736
acquiescence. See Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2015)
(explaining standard for deferral of removal under CAT); Zheng v. Holder, 644
F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --