N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HEC TOR ESJANI B ENITES PAR DO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-74165 Age n c y No. A095-670-276 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 Fe brua

ry 9, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd IKUTA, C irc u it Judge s a nd PR ATT, *** Se n ior Distric t Judge
. He c tor B e nite s Pa

rdo a ppe a ls the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de c ision to deny

his a pplic at i ons for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a djustm e nt 

# F IL ED F EB 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble R obe rt W . Pratt, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa tion.of sta

tus, prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(C AT), a nd volunta

ry de pa rture . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. The judic ia lly

notic e a ble doc um e nts e sta

blishe d tha

t B e nite s Pa

rdo wa s c onvic te d unde r se c tion 11378 of the C a lifornia

He a lth & Sa fe ty

C ode for posse s sion for sa le of m e tha m phe tam ine
. The B IA’ s re fe re nc e to se c tion 11379(a ), wa s a sc rive n e r’ s e rror and ha

rm le ss. C f. Zix i ang Li v . K

e rry , 710 F.3d 995, 999 n.3 (9th C ir. 2013)
. The B IA wa s not re quire d to de te rm ine whe the r B e nite s Pardo’ s offe nse involve d a “ usa ble am ount” of m e tha

m phe t am ine , an d the B IA did not othe rwise e rr in de te rm ining tha t B e nite s Pa

rdo’ s sta te c onvic tion wa s a

fe lony unde r the C ontrolle d Substa nc e s Ac t. Se e 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C ); 18 U.S.C . § 3559. Ac c ordingly , the B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t B e nite s Pa

rdo wa s c onvic te d of a

n a ggrav ate d fe lony , se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(43)(B ), 18 U.S.C . § 924(c ); se e a l

so Unite d State

s v . Torre -J

i me ne z , 771 F.3d 1163, 1165–66 (9th C ir. 2014), a

n d the re fore wa s sta

tutorily ine ligiblefor a s y lum , a djustm e nt of sta tus, a n d volunta

ry de pa rture , se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1158(b)(2)(B )(i), 1229c (a )(1), 1255(i)(2)(A). The B IA did not e rr in a ffirm ing theIm m igrat ion Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of B e nite s Pa

rdo’ s c l a im

for withholding of rem ova l. The IJ’ s de c ision tha t B e nite s Pardo wa s not a

m e m be r of a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group is supporte d by substa ntia l 2e vide nc e . Se e Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227, 251–52 (B IA 2014); se e

also Oc hoa v . Gonzale

s , 406 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th C ir. 2005). C onstruing B e nite s Pardo’ s c la im

a s a re que st for de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r 8 C .F.R . § 1208.17, there wa s substa

ntia l e vide nc e to support the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t he wa s ine ligiblefor re lie f be c a

u se B e nite s Pa

rdo did not me e t his burde n of proving tha t a ny torture would be inflic te d with thea c quie sc e nc e or willful blindne ss of the gove rnm e nt of M e x ic o. Se e Orne las-C

hav e z v . Gonzale

s , 458 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th C ir. 2006). B e nite s Pardo pre se nte d no e v ide nc e to ove rc om e the pre sum ption tha t the B IA c onside re d the re le v ant e vide n c e and findings of the IJ, se eLarita-Martine z v . IN S , 220 F.3d 1092, 1095–96 (9th C ir. 2000), so his a rgum e nt tha

t the B IA viola te d his right to due

proc e ss fa ils. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3