N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DUNG TUAN DANG, AKA Dung Da ng, Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-72093 Age n c y No. A042-490-433 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 14, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , SC HR OEDER , a n d FOR REST, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Dung Da

n g , a c itiz e n of Vie tna

m , pe t itions for re vie w of the de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls de ny ing his re que st for withholding of re m ova l a

n d for de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . 

# FIL ED OCT 4 2021 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.The B oa rd de nie d withholding of re m ova l, c onc luding tha

t Pe titione r wa s ine l igible for suc h re lie f be c a use his C a l ifornia

c onvic tion of a ssa

ult with me ans to c a use gre at bodily injury

wa s a “ pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e .” 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(B )(ii); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(d)(2). Pe titione r doe s not dispute the c onvic tion or thenature of his a c tions, but c onte nds tha t the im m i gration judge fa ile d to c onside r his unde rly ing m e nta l he a lth disorde rs, inc luding depre ssion a nd substa nc e a buse . S e e Gome z-Sanc he z v . Se ssions , 892 F.3d 985, 996 (9th C ir. 2018) (holding tha

t c ourts m ay c onside r m e nta l he a lth e vide nc e whe n de te rm ining if a c onvic tion is a

“ pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e ” ). The im

m igrat ion judgee xpre ssly re fe rre d, howe v e r, to Pe titione r’ s substa nc e a b use , lone line ss, a

nd de pre ssion, a

nd c onc lude d tha

t the nature o f the offe nse — involving prope rty dam a ge and thre at of viole nt injury

— ne ve rthe l e ss re nde re d Pe titione r ine ligiblefor withholding. This c ourt c annot re -we igh the e vide nc e to re a c h a diffe re nt c onc lusion a s to the se riousne ss of the c rim e . S e e Av e ndano-He r

nande z v . Ly n c h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th C ir. 2015). Pe titione r fa ile d to show tha t he ha d suffe re d torture in the pa st or tha t it wa s m ore like ly

tha n not tha t he would be torture d

at the ha nds of the gove rnm e nt or with its a c quie sc e n c e . Se e 8 C . F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(1). The re c ord, at m ost, e sta

blishe s tha

t Am e ra sia

n s ha ve be e n se v e re ly

disc rim inate d 2a ga inst in Vie tna m . No e vide nc e pe rta ining to Pe titione r him se lf sugge sts a ny like lihood of torture . Se e Dhital v . Muk ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th C ir. 2008) (de ny ing C AT re lie f be c a use pe titione r ha d shown tha t torture take s pla c e in the p ropose d c ountry

of re m ova l but ha d not shown tha t pe titione r spe c ific a lly would be torture d). Pe titione r’ s c ha lle nge to the jurisdic tion of theIm m igration C ourt is fore c lose d by Aguilar Fe rmin v . Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 894 (9th C i r. 2020). The te m pora ry sta y of re m ova l re m a i ns in e ffe c t until the m andate issue s. The m o tion for sta

y of re m ova l is othe rwise de nie d. The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D .

3