N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VIC TOR H. M AR TINEZ-GONZALEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-72445 Age n c y No. A036-164-011
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

April 5, 2016 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, and M
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d TYM KOVIC H, C hie f Judge
. *** Pe titione r Vic tor H. M artine z -Gonz a le z se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ s de nia l of re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture 

# FIL ED APR 07 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 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). *** The Honora

ble Tim othy

M . Ty m kovic h , C hie f Judge for the Te nth C irc uit C ourt of Appe a ls, sitting by de signa tion.(C AT). To be e n t itle d to C A T re lie f, a pe titione r m

ust show tha

t it is more like ly tha n not he will betorture d upon re turn to his na tive c ountry . 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.16(c )(2). Exe rc ising jurisdiction unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, 1 we DENY his pe tition for re vie w. M artine z -Gonz a l e z , a

native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o, wa s a dm itte d to the Unite d State s in 1976 a s a

la wful pe rm ane n t re side nt. B e twe e n 1990 a nd 2011, he
wa s c onvic te d of thre e fe lonie s, se rving ja il tim e for e a c h. B e c a use of the se c rim e s, the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity sought to
re m ove M artine z -Gonz a l e z ba se d on both 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii). An im m igration judge issue d a

n orde r susta i ning thec h arge of re m ova bility unde r § 1227(a )(2)(A)(ii) but dismissing it unde r (iii). M artine z -Gonz a le z the n file d
a pplic ations for withholding of re m ova l a nd C AT prote c tion, c la i m ing a fe ar of pe rse c ution a

nd torture be c a

use of his se xua l orie ntation. Afte r an e vide ntia

ry he aring on them e rits, theIJ de nie d a l l re lie f, finding M artine z -Gonz a l e z ’ s c onvic tions m a de him re m ova ble . The IJ a lso found

1 The gove rnm e nt se e ks e n ba nc re vie w of whe t

he r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(C ) pre c lude s judic ia l re vie w of C AT c la im s whe n a n a lie n is re m ova

b le by re a son of having c o m

m itte d a re le va nt c rim e . B ut this thre e judge pa ne l is bound by c irc uit pre c e de nt. W e have jurisdic tion to c onside r a de nia l of C AT re lie f whe n, a s he re , the i m m igration judgede nie s re lie f on the m e rits, ra the r tha n on the ba s is of the c rim e . Se e Morale

s v . Gonzale

z , 478 F.3d 972, 980 (9th C ir. 2007). Thus, the re is no jurisdic tiona l que stion in this c a se . 2M artine z -Gonz a l e z did not wa rrant C AT prote c tion be c a use he fa i le d to show suffic i e nt like lihood of future torture on the ba sis of his se xua l orie ntation. The B IA dism isse d M artine z -Gonz a le z ’ s a p pe a l, finding he

fa i le d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not tha t he would betorture d

upon his re turn to M e x ic o. W e ne e d not re a c h the m e rits of this c a se . Although we tole ra t e m i nor bre a c he s of brie fing rule s, whe n num e rous viola tions e xist, we strike an a ppe lla n t’ s brie f and dismiss thea

ppe a l. Se e N

/ S C o rp. v . Libe rty

Mut. Ins. C

o. , 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th C ir. 1997); se e also Toroya n v . Gonzale s , 192 F. App’ x 622, 623 (9th C ir. 2006) (unpublishe d ) (dism issing, for fa ilure to c om ply with brie fing rule s, an a l ie n ’ s pe tition for re vie wof a B IA de c ision de ny ing C A T re lie f). That is thec a se h e re . M a rtine z -Gonz a l e z ’ s ope ning brie f fa ils to sa tisfy both Ninth C irc uit R

ule 28-2 a nd Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe lla

t e Proc e dure 28. First , he fa ils to sta

te the sta tutory ba sis of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion of thea ge nc y . Fe d. R
. App. P. 28(a )(4)(A); Ninth C ir. R . 28-2.2(a ). Se c ond, he fa ils to sta te be fore the sta te m e nt of the c a se the sta

tutory ba sis of jurisdic tion of this c ourt. Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a )(4)(B ); Ninth C i r. R . 28-2.2(b). Third, he doe s not sta te a s to e a c h issue the
a pplic a ble sta nda rd of re v ie w, nor doe s he a pply the re le va

nt sta nda rd to the fa c ts. Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a)(8)(B ); Ninth C ir. R . 28-2.5. Fourth , he fa ils to a tta c h to his ope ning brie f the re quire d a dde ndum c om prise d of both orde rs be ing c ha l le nge d,
3inc l uding theorde r of the im m igration c ourt. Ninth C ir. R
. 28-2.7. Fifth , he fa ils to inc lude a

c om ple te ta b le of a uthoritie s. Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a)(3). S ix t h , he fa ils to m ake a ppropria te c ita t ions to the

re c ord, inc luding sta

ting whe re in the re c ord a n issue wa s first ra ise d

and rule d upon be low. Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a)(6); Ninth C ir. R . 28-2.5. The se m ista

ke s a re a side from

othe r m atte rs suc h a s “ c re ative re nditions of what a c tua lly oc c urre d” be low. Se e N /S C orp ., 127 F.3d a

t 1146. W e have the disc re t ion to ove rlook de fic ie nc ie s in brie fing e ve n whe n the re are m ultiplete c hnic a l viola

t ions of therule s . Se e W

i lliams v . Ge rbe r Prods. C o. , 552 F.3d 934, 937 (9th C ir. 2008). B ut we c h oose to e xe rc ise this powe r only whe n we be lie ve tha

t a n a ppe lla nt’ s c la im s ha

ve m e rit. Id . As we have note d, “ we would fe e l m ost une a sy

if this we re an othe rwise m e ritorious a p pe a l, whic h c rie d out for re ve rsa l of the [lowe r] c ourt’ s de c isions.” N /S C orp. , 127 F.3d a

t 1146. This is not such a

c a se . And e ve n if we we re to re a c h the m e rits, M artine z Gonz a le z ha s not sa

tisfie d his burde n

of proving it is m

ore like ly tha n not he would be torture d upon his re turn to M e xic o . Nor ha s he pe rsua sive ly argue d tha

t the B IA’ s de c ision wa s unsupporte d by substa ntia l e v i de nc e , or tha

t the B IA fa i le d to
c onside r a ll of the re le v ant e vide nc e . W e are c onvinc e d the B IA did not e rr. In
sum , M artine z -Gonz a le z m isc ha ra c te riz e s or m isc onstrue s the orde rs of both theIJ

4and the B IA, and a s a re sult fa ils to m ake any argum e n t tha t would e ntitle him

to re lie f. PETITION FOR

REVIEW

DENIED.

5