ALDO DANIEL ARELLANO-GOMEZ, AKA Aldo Daniel Arellano, AKA Daniel Arellano v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALDO DANIEL ARELLANO-GOMEZ,
AKA Aldo Daniel Arellano, AKA Daniel
Arellano,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72547
Agency No. A200-975-683
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Aldo Daniel Arellano-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying withholding of removal and
* 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
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72547
protection 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 underlying its CAT eligibility determination. Konou v. Holder, 750
F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v.
Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Arellano-Gomez’s unexhausted contention
that the agency erred in applying the presumption that his conviction under
California Health and Safety Code § 11359 is a particularly serious crime because
he contends it is not an aggravated felony drug trafficking crime. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal
claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arellano-
Gomez has not established the Mexican government would consent or acquiesce to
any torture he may face if returned to Mexico. See Konou, 750 F.3d at 1124
(“Under the substantial evidence standard, the court upholds the BIA’s
determination unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.”).
The record does not support Arellano-Gomez’s contention that the BIA ignored
evidence. In light of this determination, we need not address Arellano-Gomez’s
contention that the agency erred in its application of Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I. & N.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72547
Dec. 912 (AG 2006), to its analysis of the likelihood that he would be tortured
upon his return to Mexico. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004) (courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision
of which is unnecessary to the results).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --