N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B ELAN SANC HEZ-TREJO, a .k.a . B e l e n Sanc he z -Tre

jo, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-70880 Age n c y No. A088-502-347 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 August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . B e la n Sanc he z -Tre

jo, a native and c itiz e n

of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of an orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de ny ing he r m otion to re m and a nd dismissing he r a

ppe a l from

a de c ision of a

n im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) de ny ing he r a

pplic ations for c anc e l lation of re m ova l , withholding of re m ova l, a nd 

# F IL ED AUG 18 2014 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).prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is

gove rne d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de novo que s tions of la w. Latte r-Singh v . Holde r , 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th C ir. 2012). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. Our c a se la

w fore c lose s Sa

nc he z -Tre jo’ s c onte ntion tha

t he r offe nse of m aking c rim ina l thre ats unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C o de § 422 doe s not c ate goric a lly qua lify a s a c rim e involving m

o ra l turpitude . Se e id. at 1163 (“ [W ] e c onc lude tha t § 422 is c ate goric a lly

a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude . ” ). Ac c ordingly , the B IA c orre c tly c o nc l ude d tha

t Sa nc he z -Tre j o’ s c onvic tion for this offense pre c lude s he r from e sta blishing e ligibility for c anc e lla tion of re m o va l. S

e e Flore s J uare z v . Muk ase y , 530 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ Unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(C ), an a l ie n is ine ligiblefor c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l if he ha s be e n c onvic te d of c e rta in offe nse s, inc luding a

c onvic tion of a

c rim e involving m

o ra l turpitude unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(I).” ). Sanc he z -Tre

jo’ s re l ate d a

rgum e nt tha

t he r nolo c onte nde re ple a to this offe nse pursua

nt to Pe o plev . W e st , 477 P.2d 409 (C a l. 1970), pre c lude s a c ate goric a l a

na ly sis of thesta

tute of c onvic tion is m

ispla c e d. Se e Latte r-Singh , 668 F.3d a

t 1159 (“ If the full ra

nge of c onduc t unde r the sta tute fits the de finition

1 1 - 7 0 8 8 0 2of a

c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude , the n a

ny c o nvic tion unde r the sta

tute c an subje c t a n a lie n to re m ova

bility .” ). Sanc he z -Tre

jo ha s wa ive d a

ny c ha l le nge to the B IA’ s dispositive de te rm i nation tha

t she is ine ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l in light of her a dm ission tha

t she ha s no fe ar of re turning to M e xic o. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [W ] e ge ne ra lly will not ta

ke up a rgum e nts not ra ise d in a

n a lie n’ s ope n ing brie f be fore this c ourt.” ). The re fore , we ne e d not re a c h Sanc he z -Tre

jo’ s c ha lle nge to the B IA’ s a lte rnative de te rm ination tha t she did not a de quate ly

de m onstra

te m e m be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Se e Me ndezAlc a raz v . Gonzale

s , 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th C ir. 2006) (de c lining to re a c h nondispositive

c ha lle nge s to a B IA orde r). W ith re ga rd to Sa nc he z -Tre jo’ s re q ue st for C AT prote c tion, there c o rd be lie s he r c onte ntion tha

t the B IA e rrone ously

c onside re d

in the first insta

nc e whe the r the re c o rd de m onstra

te d tha t the M e xic a

n gove rnm e nt would a c quie sc e in he r torture . Se e P e re z -Palafox v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1138, 1146 (9th C ir. 2014) (ide ntify ing no im pe rm issiblefa c tfinding by the B IA, whe re it “ did not a dd a ny fa c ts to those found by the IJ or ignore any fa c ts found by the IJ” ). Sanc he z -Tre

j o ha s wa ive d he r re late d c o nte ntion tha t the B IA m isinte rpre te d the m e aning of thete rm

“ a c quie sc e nc e .” Se e Ghahre m ani v . Gonzale s , 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th C ir. 2007) 1 1 - 7 0 8 8 0 3(“ Issue s ra ise d in a brie f that a

re not supporte d by argum e n t a re de e m e d a ba ndone d.” ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w Sanc he z -Tre jo’ s une xha

uste d c onte ntions tha

t the IJ a pplie d an inc orre c t sta

n da rd to he r partic ula

r-soc ia l-group c la im , fa ile d to c onside r the a

pplic a ble c rite ria for C AT, a

n d ignore d the bulk of he r C AT e vide nc e . Se e Tijani , 628 F.3d a t 1080. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 1 - 7 0 8 8 0 4