Jose Manuel Arenas-Pinzon v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL ARENAS-PINZON,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-192
Agency No.
A060-306-570
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Arenas-Pinzon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral under the Convention Against
* 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
SEP 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-192
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Because Arenas-Pinzon does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum
and withholding of removal, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Arenas-Pinzon 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).
Arenas-Pinzon’s claim the IJ violated due process by applying the incorrect
legal standard fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v.
Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a
petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
Arenas-Pinzon’s contentions that the IJ failed to develop the record and
failed to consider evidence are not properly before the court because he failed to
raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of
administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-192
598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-
processing rule).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --