NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIME ESCOBAR-ALFARO, AKA Jaime No. 15-72528 Alfaro Escobar, Agency No. A088-968-527 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. Jaime Escobar-Alfaro, 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 decision denying his application for 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). 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 review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Escobar-Alfaro 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). We reject as unsupported by the record Escobar-Alfaro’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claim. Escobar-Alfaro’s contention that the BIA’s typographical error rendered the decision unreliable fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We lack jurisdiction to consider Escobar-Alfaro’s contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to 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); see also Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 2 15-72528 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007) (indicating that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in a motion to reopen before the BIA). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 15-72528 15-72528 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jaime Escobar-Alfaro v. Merrick Garland 21 January 2022 Agency Unpublished 5173d3fa8de509ad599f28b05b921ea5d2da6ee4
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals