N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT Oc tavio C arrillo C a

rrillo, Pe t i tione r,
v. M e rric k B . Ga

rland, U.S. Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 21-964 Age n c y No. A096-742-498
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2023 * * Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM AS, M ILLER , a nd SANC HEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Oc tavio C arrillo C arrillo, a native and c itiz e n of M e x i c o, pe titions for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de c ision de ny ing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing C arrillo C arrillo re lie f unde r the 

# FIL ED FEB 22 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. “ W h e re , a s he re , the B IA c ite s [Matte r of ] Burbano [20 I. & N. De c . 872 (B IA 1994)] an d

a lso provide s its own re vie w of the e vide n c e and la w, we re vie w both the IJ’ s a

n d B IA’ s de c i sions.” Ruiz-C olme nare s v . Garland

, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th C i r. 2022) (quoting Ali v . Holde r , 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C i r. 2011)). De spite C arrillo C arrillo’ s c rim i na l c onvic tions, we m ay re vie w que stions of fa c t a s to his C AT c la im
. N

a srallah v
. Barr , 140 S. C t. 1683, 1692 (2020) (the lim its on judic ia l re v i e w of re m ova l orde rs for pe ople with c e rta i n c o nvic tions do not a pply to C AT orde rs be c a

use C AT orde rs a

re “ d istinc t” from

“ fina l orde r[s] of
re m ova l” an d “ do[] not a ffe c t ” re m ova l orde rs’ “ va lidity ” ). W e re vie w a

n a ge nc y ’ s de c ision tha

t a pe t itione r fa ile d to e s ta

blish
e ligibility for C AT re lie f for substa ntia l e vide nc e , upholding the de c ision unle ss

“ the e vide nc e in the re c ord c om pe l s a c ontra ry c onc lusion.” Ve l

asque z-Samay oa v . Garland , 49 F.4th 1149, 1154 (9th C ir. 2022) (quoting C ole v . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th C ir. 2011)). Howe ve r, whe n c onside ring re l ie f from re m ova l, “ we re vie w de nov o . . . pure ly le ga l que stions.” C

o rdoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Me ndoza–Pablo v . Holde r , 667 F.3d 1308, 1312 (9th C ir. 2012)). B e c a

u se the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c tua l a

nd proc e d ura l

2history

of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . W e dism iss in pa rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. I W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r “ due proc e ss c la im s ba se d on c orre c ta ble proc e d ura l e rrors unle ss the [nonc itiz e n] ra i se d the m be low.” Agy e man v . I.N .S. , 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th C ir. 2002). C arrillo C arrillo fa ile d to a rgue be fore the B IA that the IJ viola

te d his due proc e ss rights whe n the IJ fa ile d to a c c om m o da te his diffic u lty obta ining e v i de nc e while he wa s inc arc e rate d during the C OVID-19 pa nde m ic . B ut, if a ske d , the B IA c ould ha ve c onside re d

whe the r the IJ provide d C arrillo C arrillo suffic ie nt opportunity to ga t he r e vide nc e , a

nd the B IA c ould ha

ve re m ande d if C arrillo C arrillo showe d he re quire d a dditiona l opportunity
. B e c a use C arrillo C arrillo’ s due proc e ss c la im wa s a “ c orre c ta ble proc e d

ura l e rror[] ” tha

t
wa s not ra ise d be low, the c la im wa s not prope rly e xha

uste d a nd c annot be
c onside re d. Se e id.; Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). The re fore , we dism i ss this portion of the pe tition. II C arrillo C arrillo proffe re d two the orie s for why he would be torture d in M e x ic o—

his fa m ily c onne c tions a

nd his sta t us a s a prom ine nt m

usic i an. He
argue s tha

t the a ge nc y

should ha

ve “ a ggre ga te [d] the risks pose d by [the se ] two

3the o rie s” whe n de te rm i ning whe the r the re wa s a “ proba bility gre a te r tha

n 50 pe rc e nt tha

t [C arrillo C arrillo] will be torture d.” Ve lasque z -Samay oa , 49 F.4th a

t 1155

– 56. Inste a d, the a ge n c y e rre d by only c o nside ring C arrillo C arrillo’ s fam ily
c onne c tions whe n a

na ly z ing his risk of torture
. Se e id. H owe ve r, nothing in the
re c o rd c om

pe ls a finding tha

t the M e xic an gove rnm e nt would a c quie sc e in C arrillo C arrillo’ s torture . Se e B.R. v . Garland , 26 F.4th 827, 844

–45 (9th C ir. 2022); Andrade -Garc i a v . Ly nc h , 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th C ir. 2016). The re fore , we de ny this portion of the

pe tition.

“ B e c a use [C arrillo C arrillo] fa ile d to sa tisfy this e sse ntia l e le m e n t, he is ine l igible for C AT prote c tion, a nd we ne e d

not a ddre ss his re m a ining a ssignm e nts of e rror. His pe tition for re vie w a s to his a p plic a tion for C AT prote c tion is de nie d.” B.R. , 26 F.4th a t 845. 1 The te m pora ry sta y of re m ova l re m a i ns in pla c e until the m andate issue s. The m otion for a

sta y of re m ova l is othe rwise de nie d

. PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D in par t and DE NIE D in par t.

1 W e re je c t C a rrillo C arrillo’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the a bse nc e of tim e and pla c e of he aring on his Notic e to Appe ar c onstitute s a “ pre judic ia l c la im s proc e ssing viola tion” be c a

use he fa ile d to tim e ly

ra ise tha t obje c tion during proc e e dings be fore the a ge nc y , in whic h he a tte nde d his he arings a n d wa s re pre se nte d by c ounse l. Manrique

v . Unite d State

s , 581 U.S. 116, 121 (2017) (expla ining tha t “ m andatory

c la im -proc e ssing rule s m ay be forfe ite d” whe n “ the pa rty a sse rting the rule wa its too long to ra

ise the point” (c le ane d up)).

4