Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose SOTO-MONTANO, AKA Jose Montano, AKA Jose Soto, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71343
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 10, 2016
    
      Alex Galvez, Counsel, Law Office Alex Galvez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Soto-Montano’s request for oral argument as set forth in his opening brief,
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Soto-Montano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from, an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for protection 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Soto-Montano failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of CAT where “rather than presenting hard evidence of a probability” of torture, petitioner “merely presented a series of worst-case scenarios.”). Soto-Montano’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights is unexhausted so we lack jurisdiction over this claim, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004), and his contentions that the IJ ignored evidence or erred in her analysis are unpersuasive. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Soto-Montano’s CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.