Reynaldo Quiroz-Maya v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REYNALDO QUIROZ-MAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72244
Agency No. A092-382-893
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reynaldo Quiroz-Maya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 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
JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72244
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 deny in part the petition for review.
To the extent Quiroz-Maya challenges the agency’s case-specific
particularly serious crime determination, we lack jurisdiction to consider this
unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). For the same reason, we lack
jurisdiction to consider his unexhausted contention that his conviction under
California Penal Code § 288(a) is not a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C.
§ 16(a). Ibid. The Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Sessions v. Dimaya,
138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), which held the definition of “crime of violence” in
18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is impermissibly vague, is inapposite here, where the agency did
not apply 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) in its crime of violence analysis.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where
Quiroz-Maya failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of a government official in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --