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

DO TAR AC ENA-FUNES, AKA Joe l Estua

rdo Ta ra c e na , Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-74132 Age n c y No. A077-293-995
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

nua ry 18, 2017 ** B e fore : TR OTT, TASHIM A, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Joe l Estua

rdo Ta ra c e na -Fune s, a

nat ive and c itiz e n

of Guate m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his
a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision finding him re m o v a ble and de ny ing his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l a nd prote c t ion unde r the



# FIL ED JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
.

§ 1252. W e re vie wde novo que stions of la w , C oronado v
. Holde r , 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th C i r. 2014), a

nd re v ie w for substa

ntia l e vide nc e the de nia l of C A T re lie f, Silay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de ny the pe tition for
re vie w. Tara c e na -Fune s’ c onte ntion tha t his c onvic tion unde r C a l ifornia Pe na l C ode § 245(a )(1) is not c at e goric a lly an a ggravat e d fe lony is fore c l ose d by

this c ourt’ s holdings in Unite d State

s v . Graje da , 581 F.3d 1186, 1191-97 (9th C ir. 2009) a nd Unite d State s v . J i me n e z-Arzate , 781 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th C ir. 2015). In the
a bse nc e of a

n inte rve ning Supre m e C ourt or e n ba nc de c ision, “ [a ] thre e -judge pa ne l c annot re c onside r or ove rrule c irc uit pre c e d e nt.” A v agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th C ir. 2011). The a ge n c y

a p plie d the c orre c t sta

n da rd in de t e rm i ning tha

t Ta ra c e na -Fune s’
c onvic tion wa s a

pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e tha

t re nde re d him

ine ligiblefor withholding of rem o v a l. Se e Matte r of N -A-M- , 24 I. & N. De c . 336, 342 (B IA 2007) (“ [W ] e e xam ine the nat ure of the c onvic tion, thety pe of se nte nc e im

pose d , and the c irc um sta

n c e s a nd unde rly ing fa c ts of thec o nvic tion.” ); Anay a-Ortiz v
. Holde r , 594 F.3d 673, 678 (9th C ir. 2010) (de fe rring to theB IA’ s a pproa c h to

1 3
- 7 4 1 3 2 2pa

rtic u la rly se rious c rim e de te rm inations in Matte r of N -A-M- ); 8 U.S.C
. §§ 1229a (c )(4)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B )(ii). C ontra ry to Ta ra c e na -Fune s’ c onte ntion, theB IA did not e rr in c o nside ring the n ature of his subse que nt proba tion viola tion. Se eAnay a-Ortiz , 594 F.3d a t 678 (a ll re lia ble inform ation m ay

be c onside re d in a

pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e de te rm i nation); c

f. A v e ndano-He rnande

z v . Ly nc h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th C ir. 2015) (the a ge n c y

e rre d in tre ating a

viola tion of proba

t ion a s a se nte n c i ng e nha nc e m e nt of a l ie n’ s origina l se nte nc e in m aking thepa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e de te rm i nation). The re c ord doe s not support Ta ra c e na -Fune s’ c onte ntion tha t the B IA tre ate d his c onvic tion a s a

pe r se c at e gory

of pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e . Tara c e na -Fune s’ c onte nds tha t, unde r Monc rie

ffev . Holde r , 133 S.C t. 1678 (2013), a nd Me dina-Lara v . Holde r , 771 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 2014), heshould not have be e n re q uire d to providee vide nc e tha t would not ha

ve be e n pe rm itte d unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h to e sta

blish tha t he ha d not be e n

c onvic te d of a pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e . Howe ve r, this c onte ntion is una va iling be c a

use those
c a se s re late to the c ate goric a l a nd m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c he s to disqualify ing
c rim e s a nd do not c onc e rn the d isc re tiona ry pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e de te rm i nation.

1 3
- 7 4 1 3 2 3C ontra ry to Ta ra c e na -Fune s’ c onte ntion, theB IA did not ha ve to a d dre ss his
e ligibility for withholding of rem ova l on them e rits, whe re the B IA’ s pa rtic ula rly
se rious c rim e de te rm inat ion wa s dispositive
. Se eSime onov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C AT, whe re the re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t it is more like ly tha n not Ta ra c e na -Fune s will betorture d by or with thec onse nt or
a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re m o ve d to Gua te m a la
. Se eSilay a , 524 F.3d a t 1073. Ta ra c e na -Fune s’ c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y

insuffic ie ntly

c onside re d his C AT c la i m

is not supporte d by

the re c ord. Se eN

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010); C ole v . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th C ir. 2011) (the B IA is not re quire d

to “ disc uss e a c h pie c e of e vide nc e subm itte d” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3
- 7 4 1 3 2 4