Juan De Loera Jimenez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN DE LOERA JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73485
Agency No. A044-125-516
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Juan de Loera Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing an appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
* 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 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73485
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez’s contention that the agency erred
in determining that his criminal conviction constituted a particularly serious crime
because he failed to raise the issue before 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Jimenez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See 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.

-- 2 of 2 --