JAIME ESCOBAR-ALFARO, AKA Jaime Alfaro Escobar v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME ESCOBAR-ALFARO, AKA Jaime
Alfaro Escobar,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72528
Agency No. A088-968-527
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Escobar-Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
* 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
JAN 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72528
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754
F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Escobar-Alfaro failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by
the record Escobar-Alfaro’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or
otherwise erred in its analysis of his claim. Escobar-Alfaro’s contention that the
BIA’s typographical error rendered the decision unreliable fails. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a
due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Escobar-Alfaro’s contentions regarding
ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency); see also Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72528
812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007) (indicating that ineffective assistance of counsel claims
must be raised in a motion to reopen before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --