N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SAM UEL GUER

RER O VER

DEJA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . Nos. 13-72958 14-70397 Age n c y No. A046-615-804 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 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Sam ue l Gue rre ro Ve rde

ja , a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ) (No. 13-72958), a nd of the B IA’ s orde r 

# FIL ED MAR 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 the se c a se s are suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we de ny Gue rre ro Ve rde ja ’ s re que st for ora l a

rgum e nt.de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings (No. 14-70397). We have

jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008), and re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n, N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the pe titions for re vie w. As to pe tition No. 13-72958, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s dispositive

finding tha

t, e ve n if Gue rre ro Ve rde

ja wa s c re dible , he fa ile d to e sta blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not hewould betorture d if re turne d to M e xic o. Se e Silay a , 524 F.3d a

t 1073. W e re

je c t Gue rre ro Ve rde

ja ’ s c onte ntions tha

t the B IA fa ile d to c onside r re le va

nt e vide nc e or suffic ie ntly c onside r his c la im . Se e N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 990 (B IA a de quate ly

c o nside re d e vide nc e and suffic ie ntly announc e d its de c i sion). Thus, Guerre ro Ve rde ja ’ s C AT c la im

fa i ls. As to pe tition No. 14-70397, the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Gue rre ro Ve rde

ja ’ s m o tion to re ope n be c a u se his ne w e vide nc e did not a ddre ss the a ge nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha

t he fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha

n not hewould be torture d in M e x i c o. Se eid. at 986 (thec ourt “ de fe r[s] to the B IA’ s e xe rc ise of disc re tion unle ss it a c te d a rbitra rily , irrationa lly , or c ontra ry to la w” ). W e re

je c t Gue rre ro Ve rde

ja ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the B IA e rre d by

not a ddre s sing his a

rgum e nts ba se d on this c ourt’ s de c ision in C ordoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 1 3 - 7 2 9 5 8 /1 4 - 7 0 3 9 7 22013). Se eSime onov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ As a ge ne ra l rule c ourts a

nd a ge n c ie s a

re not re q uire d to m ake findings on issue s the de c ision of whic h is unne c e ssa

ry to the re s ults the y re a c h.” ) (inte rna l quota tion a nd c ita tion om i tte d). PE T IT IO NS FO R

RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 2 9 5 8 /1 4 - 7 0 3 9 7

3