NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICOLASA MENDOZA DE MARTINEZ, No. 19-71611 AKA Nicholasa Martinez, AKA Nicolasa Mendoza Peregrino, Agency No. A023-036-463 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Nicolasa Mendoza de Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for * 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Mendoza de Martinez does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA’s determination that she failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in the opening brief). Because the agency found Mendoza de Martinez removable due to her convictions for a crime 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). To the extent Mendoza de Martinez challenges the agency’s weighing of factors in its particularly serious crime determination, we lack jurisdiction to consider the contentions. See Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 448-49. Thus, Mendoza de Martinez’s withholding of removal claims fail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). 2 19-71611 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Mendoza de Martinez 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). We reject as unsupported by the record Mendoza de Martinez’s contention that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claim. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 19-71611 19-71611 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Nicolasa Mendoza De Martinez v. Merrick Garland 28 April 2021 Agency Unpublished 72a1007d8693d934fafc1a9fa2a980821cb4a2e5
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals