N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT JUAN C ARLOS C AM POS-PEREZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73908 Age n c y No. A087-543-425
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 Oc tobe r 18, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E and GR A B ER , C i rc uit Judge s, a

nd LASNIK, *** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Jua

n C arlos C a

m p os-Pe re z is a

native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o. He tim e ly pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (" B IA" ) orde r



# FIL ED OCT 22 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R obe rt S. La snik, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (" IJ" ) de c ision de ny ing his
a pplic ations for a sy lum , c anc e lla tion of re m ova l, withholding of re m ova l, a nd
re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(" C AT" ). 1. W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Pe titione r’ s a sy lum c la im . He fa ile d to
c ha lle nge be fore the B IA the IJ’ s de nia l of his a pplic ation a s untim e ly , a

holding that inde p e nde ntly

dispose d of the a sy l um

c l a im . Adm inistra

t ive e x ha ustion is a jurisdic tiona l pre re q

uisiteto our re vie w. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); B a rron v. Ashc roft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th C ir. 2004). 2. The B IA de nie d

Pe titione r’ s a

pplic ation for c anc e lla

t ion of re m o v a l on the g round tha

t he ha d be e n c onvic te d of a c rim e involving m ora l turpitude
. Pe titione r’ s a

rgum e n t tha

t the phra se " c rim e involving m o ra l turpitude " is
unc onstitutiona

lly va gue is fore c lose d by

pre c e de nt. M artine z -de R y a n v. Se ssions, 895 F.3d 1191 (9th C ir. 2018). 3. Pe titione r a lso a

rgue s tha t Le a l v. Holde r, 771 F.3d 1140 (9th C ir. 2014), whic h he ld tha

t fe lony e nda nge rm e nt unde r Ariz ona

R e vise d Statute s se c tion 13-1201 is c ate goric a lly

a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude , wa s wrongly de c ide d. B ut, a s a thre e -judge pa

ne l, we are bound by

Le a l. Se e M ille r v. Ga

m m ie , 335 F.3d 889, 892–93 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc ) (holding tha

t a pre c e de nt m ay

be
ove rturne d only

e n ba nc , with e xc e ptions tha

t do not a pply he re ).
24. Pe titione r ne xt a s se rts tha t he is e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l be c a use he will be pe rse c ute d , if re turne d to M e xic o, on a c c ount of his
m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. The B IA pe rm issibly he ld tha t Pe titione r fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of proof, 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b)(2), e spe c ia lly in vie w of his te stim ony

tha t he ha s not be e n thre ate ne d in the pa st. 5. Fina lly , Pe titione r c la im s tha t he is e ntitle d to C A T re lie f. The B IA uphe ld the IJ’ s findings tha t it is not m

ore like ly tha n not tha t Pe titione r would be torture d, with thea c quie sc e n c e of the gove rnm e nt, we re he re t urne d to M e xic o. W e re vie wthe a ge nc y ’ s findings of fa c t for substa ntia l e v ide nc e and m ay

not se t
a side those findings unle ss " any re a sona ble a djudic ator would bec om pe lle d to
c onc lude to the c ontra

ry ." 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ). The re c o rd doe s not m e e t that sta nda rd. Pe titione r’ s c onte ntions re ga rding his fe ars of re turning to M e xic o
are n ot suffic ie ntly

pa rtic u la riz e d. Se e De l ga do-Ortizv. Holde r, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ) (" Pe titione rs’ ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e of viole nc e
and c rim e in M e xic o is not pa rtic ula r to Pe titione rs a

nd is insuffic ie nt to . . .
e sta blish prim e fa c ie e ligibility for prote c tion unde r the C A T." ). Pe tition DISM ISSE D in par t and DE N I E D in par t.

3