Elder Acevedo Valencia v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

14-72694Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit16 juil. 2018

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELDER ACEVEDO VALENCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72694
Agency No. A088-451-523
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Elder Acevedo Valencia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* 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
JUL 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72694
jurisdiction is governed by 8 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). We dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Valencia’s contentions regarding political
opinion and any challenge to the IJ’s denial of Valencia’s CAT claim because he
failed to exhaust them 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).
As to Valencia’s withholding of removal claim, this court’s decision in
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), came down after the
BIA’s decision. Thus, we grant the petition for review as to withholding of
removal, and remand this claim to the BIA to determine the impact, if any, of this
decision. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part;
and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.