NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIRO E. MELENDEZ-IRAHETA, AKA No. 20-72557 Jairo Melendez, Agency No. A044-471-286 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 19, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jairo E. Melendez-Iraheta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is * 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). governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Melendez-Iraheta failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no likelihood of torture). We reject as unsupported by the record Melendez-Iraheta’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claim. We lack jurisdiction to consider Melendez-Iraheta’s contentions regarding his removability because he did not raise them to 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); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding the exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” decisions in which the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without opinion). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 20-72557 20-72557 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jairo Melendez-Iraheta v. Merrick Garland 21 January 2022 Agency Unpublished 8d1ee80585fb2dad41f228168888dd920cc0ba76
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals