NICOLASA MENDOZA DE MARTINEZ, AKA Nicholasa Martinez, AKA Nicolasa Mendoza Peregrino v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICOLASA MENDOZA DE MARTINEZ,
AKA Nicholasa Martinez, AKA Nicolasa
Mendoza Peregrino,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71611
Agency No. A023-036-463
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nicolasa Mendoza de Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
* 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
APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71611
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 the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
Mendoza de Martinez does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to
the BIA’s determination that she failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding
petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in the
opening brief).
Because the agency found Mendoza de Martinez removable due to her
convictions for a crime involving moral turpitude and a crime related to a
controlled substance, our jurisdiction to review the agency’s particularly serious
crime determination is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of
law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448-
49 (9th Cir. 2012). To the extent Mendoza de Martinez challenges the agency’s
weighing of factors in its particularly serious crime determination, we lack
jurisdiction to consider the contentions. See Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 448-49. Thus,
Mendoza de Martinez’s withholding of removal claims fail. See 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71611
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Mendoza de Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not
she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We
reject as unsupported by the record Mendoza de Martinez’s contention that the
agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --