NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIVIA DE DOS SANTOS PINHEIRO, No. 18-72720 AKA Livia Pinheiro, AKA Livia Santos Pinheiro, Agency No. A073-944-789 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Livia De Dos Santos Pinheiro, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for deferral of removal 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). 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 Pinheiro 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 Brazil. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). The record does not support Pinheiro’s contention that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claim. We lack jurisdiction to consider Pinheiro’s contentions regarding her gender, long-term residence in the United States, and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to raise them before the agency. 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 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. 2 18-72720 18-72720 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Livia Pinheiro v. William Barr 12 May 2020 Agency Unpublished ef013f07117fcf6522d88775827a3a09305a6879
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals