Yale Augustine v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YALE AUGUSTINE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70927
Agency No. A092-022-066
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.
Yale Augustine, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision finding him removable and 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
APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70927
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Augustine’s contention that the IJ erred in
finding him removable. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not raised to agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Augustine failed to show that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Belize. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We deny Augustine’s request for a remand so that he can apply for
cancellation of removal. See Pereida v. Wilkinson, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 754,
763 (2021).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --