N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE C O NTRER

A S-R AM IR EZ, AKA Jose R am ire z -Lope z ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71078 Age n c y No. A092-215-926
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 8, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , R

A W LINSON, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 1. The B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) prope rly he ld tha t the im m igration judge(IJ) did not ha ve an obliga

tion to inquire

into JoseC ontre ra sR am i re z ’ s m e nta l c om

pe te nc y . B e c a

use “ an a l ie n is pre sum e d to be c om

p e t e nt to 

# F IL ED
JAN 10 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pa ge 2 of 3

pa rtic i pate in re m o va l proc e e dings,” the IJ wa s not re quire d to a n a ly z e C ontre ra sR am i re z ’ s m e nta l fa c ultie s unle ss he e xhibite d “ indic ia of m e n ta l inc om

pe te nc y . ” Matte r of M-A-M- , 25 I. & N. De c . 474, 477 (B IA 2011); se eMe jia v . Se ssions , 868 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th C ir. 2017). He did not e xhibit a ny suc h indic ia
. In
re sponse to the IJ’ s que stions a bout how hewa s fe e l ing, C ontre ra s-R am ire z
answe re d tha t he wa s fe e ling “ good,” tha t he wa s fine to proc e e d

with the he aring, that he wa s thinking c l e arly , a nd tha t he unde rstood tha

t he wa s in im

m igration
c ourt. C f. Me j ia , 868 F.3d a t 1121–22. In re sponse to the IJ’ s que stions a bout his he a lth, C ontre ra s-R a m i re z re sponde d tha t he wa s “ strong e nough to work” and sa id nothing a bout a ny pa st or pre s e nt m e nta l illne ss, a bnorm a lity , or inc om

p e te nc y . He c ohe re ntly

e xpla ine d why

he wa nte d to re pre se nt him se lf a nd a d m itte d the de ta ils of his c o nvic tion for dom e stic viole nc e . C f. id. a t 1122. In short, nothing in the re c ord sugge s ts tha

t the IJ ha d re a son to doubt C ontre ra s-R am ire z ’ s m e nta l
c om pe te nc y , or tha

t the IJ wa s obliga

te d to inquirefurthe r into C ontre ra sR am i re z ’ s c om

pe t e nc y . 2. The B IA c orre c tly

he ld tha t the IJ ha d no obliga

tion to a dvise C ontre ra sR am i re z of the ava ila

b ility of C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT) prote c tion or to furthe r de ve lop the re c o rd re ga rding a possible C AT c la im . Sinc e C ontre ra sR am i re z did not e xpre ss a fe ar of ha

rm upon re t urning to M e x ic o, he ha d no duePa ge 3 of 3

proc e s s right to be

inform e d of the possibility of C AT prote c tion. Se e Vale nc ia v
. Muk ase y , 548 F.3d 1261, 1262–63 (9th C ir. 2008); c f. 8 C .F.R . § 1240.11(c )(1). The ha rm he suffe re d at the ha

nds of the M e xic an polic e wa s tie d to his c onvic tion for hom ic ide . Afte r his re le a se from prison, he sta y e d in M e x ic o for two m o nths be fore re turning to the Unite d State s . This a c tion is c onsiste nt with his sta te m e nt that he did not fe ar re turning to M e xic o. W ithout a “ pla usible ba sis” for C AT
re lie f, C o ntre ra s-R a m ire z ha d “ no bla n ke t right” to be a dvise d of his a bility to
a pply for suc h re lie f. Vale nc ia , 548 F.3d a t 1262–63. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.