Socorro Osuna De Villa v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOCORRO OSUNA DE VILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71739
Agency No. A087-141-094
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Socorro Osuna de Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection 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
MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71739
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
Because Osuna de Villa was found removable for an offense involving
moral turpitude and a crime related to a controlled substance, our jurisdiction to
review the agency’s particularly serious crime determination is limited to colorable
constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D);
Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448-49 (9th Cir. 2012). We reject as
unsupported by the record Osuna de Villa’s contentions that the agency violated
her right to due process, considered improper evidence or otherwise erred in its
analysis of her claims. Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 964 (9th Cir. 2020) (all reliable
information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime
determination). Thus, her asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See 8
U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral of
removal because Osuna de Villa failed to show it is more likely than not she would
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --