United States v. 2020-10-29 | 19-71462 | LUIS LOVIO-VALENCIA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ALBERTO LOVIO-VALENCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71462

Agency No. A216-377-073

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 26, 2020
**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Luis Alberto Lovio-Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

*
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

OCT 29 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71462
agency’s particularly serious crime determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch,
800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Lovio-Valencia’s
conviction was a particularly serious crime that barred him from asylum and
withholding of removal, where the agency considered the correct factors. See
Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077 (“Our review is limited to ensuring that
the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence to reach this
conclusion.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Anaya-Ortiz v.
Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (all reliable information may be
considered in making a particularly serious crime determination (citation omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lovio-Valencia’s contention that the IJ did
not adequately review the record in making the particularly serious crime
determination. Thus, Lovio-Valencia’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lovio-Valencia 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 Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian, 755

3 19-71462
F.3d at 1035 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state
action” for CAT relief).
On October 24, 2019, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.