NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LANDA, AKA Jose Iturbide Landa, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73024 

Agency No. A090-199-473 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Jose Landa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed 

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73024 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 

1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for 

review.

Because Landa was found removable due to his conviction for a crime 

involving moral turpitude, our jurisdiction to review the agency’s particularly 

serious crime determination is limited to colorable constitutional claims and 

questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 

444, 448-49 (9th Cir. 2012). 

The agency did not err or violate due process in relying on the police report 

relating to Landa’s conviction for assault with attempt to commit rape under 

California Penal Code § 220, where Landa failed to establish that it was inaccurate 

or unreliable. See Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (all 

reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime 

determination); Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (the opponent of 

a government record bears the burden of showing it is unreliable) (internal citation 

omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show 

error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We reject

Landa’s contention that he was entitled to cross-examine the officer who prepared 

the police report, where he did not challenge the contents of the report before the 
3 17-73024 

IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311 (aliens in deportation 

proceedings may not assert a cross-examination right to prevent the government 

from establishing uncontested facts). To the extent Landa contends the agency 

ignored evidence or argument, the record does not support this contention. 

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). We lack further 

jurisdiction over Landa’s challenge to the agency’s weighing of factors in its 

particularly serious crime determination. See Avendando-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 

F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (court may not reweigh the evidence and reach its 

own determination about the crime’s seriousness); Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 448-49.

Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); 1231(b)(3)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where 

Landa failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or 

with the acquiescence of a government official in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.18(a)(1); Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.