Case ID: f-appx_706/html/0409-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raul Barajas VERDUZCO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70547
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 8, 2017  Seattle, Washington
    Filed December 14, 2017
    Steve Tanijo, Law Office of Steve Tanijo PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Manuel Palau, 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: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, 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),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raul Barajas-Verduzco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s (IJ) negative reasonable fear determination in his reinstatement of removal proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

1. The IJ supported her negative reasonable fear determination with substantial evidence. We uphold an IJ’s ruling unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on the evidence in the record.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Barajas-Verduzco did not suffer past persecution; he was not harmed or physically threatened when he lived in Mexico. The IJ concluded that Barajas-Verduzco did not show that his fear of future persecution and torture was objectively reasonable. The evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Indeed, that Barajas-Verduzco returned to Mexico for three months, without harm, supports the IJ’s conclusion.

2. Under the circumstances, we do not have jurisdiction over Barajas-Verduzco’s due process claims. This court may review a final order of removal only where the petitioner “has exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.” Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Barajas-Verduzco failed to present his claims before the IJ, and his claims aré not excepted from the exhaustion requirement because they are procedural in nature. Id. at 1136.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.