Eliodoro Sanchez Sarabia v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIODORO SANCHEZ SARABIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70537
Agency No. A092-952-037
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Eliodoro Sanchez Sarabia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from 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
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70537
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Padilla-
Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
Because Sarabia was found removable due to his conviction for an
aggravated felony, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary
determination that Sarabia’s conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime that
bars Sarabia from withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C);
Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448-49 (9th Cir. 2012) (no jurisdiction to
review particularly serious crime determination where there is no assertion of legal
or constitutional error and the only challenge is that the IJ incorrectly weighed the
facts). Thus, Sarabia’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Sarabia failed to show it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (speculative
possibility of torture does not establish eligibility for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --