Remo Natanawan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REMO NATANAWAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71459
Agency No. A043-228-075
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Remo Natanawan, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
MAR 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-71459 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
Because Natanawan is removable as an alien convicted of a law relating to a
controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), our jurisdiction is
limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Natanawan’s contention that the agency erred
in its determination that he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime does
not raise a constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D). See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012) (no
jurisdiction to review “particularly serious crime” determination where the only
challenge is that the agency incorrectly assessed the facts).
With regard to Natanawan’s request for deferral of removal under CAT,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Natanawan failed to
establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were returned to
the Philippines. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068 (likelihood of torture not
established where alien failed to offer any evidence he is likely to find himself in
military or police custody).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-71459 3
Natanawan’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --