N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LASC E LLES LINTON, a . k.a . Anthony C la rk, a .k.a . John Doe , a .k.a . Lia sc e lle M a lc iolm , a .k.a . R o y

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

e sponde nt . No. 12-73252 Age n c y No. A074-305-703 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

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. La sc e lle s Linton, a

native and c itiz e n of Ja

m a ic a , pe titions pro se

for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ions for withholding of re m ova l 

# FIL ED MAY28 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).and re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (“ C AT” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion

unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge n c y ’ s fa c tua l de te rm i nations, W

a k k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C i r. 2009), a nd re vie w de novo c la i m s of due proc e ss viola tions, Martine

z-Rosas v . Gonzale

s , 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Linton’ s c onte ntion tha

t the a ge nc y

viola te d his dueproc e ss rights by fa iling to fully c onside r and we igh the e vide nc e in his c a s e is unsupporte d by the re c ord. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror for pe titione r to pre va il on a

due proc e ss c la im ). The B IA found tha

t Linton faile d to e sta

blish tha t the polic e we re una

ble or unwilling to prote c t him . The re c ord doe s not c om pe l a diffe re nt c onc l usion, the re fore his withholding of re m ova l c la i m

fa ils. N ahrv ani v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2005) (a lthough polic e we re una ble to solvec rim e s a ga inst pe titione r e vide nc e did not c om pe l finding tha

t c rim e s we re c om

m itte d by forc e s the g ove rnm e nt wa s una

ble or unwilling to c ontrol be c a use polic e took re ports a

nd inve stiga te d pe titione r’ s c om

pla ints). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a u se Linton fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not he will betorture d if re m ove d to Jam a ic a . Se e W

ak k ary , 558 F.3d a

t 1067-68.
1 2 - 7 3 2 5 2 2Linton’ s c onte ntions tha t the a ge nc y

e rre d in de t e rm i ning c e rta in c o nvic tions are c rim e s involving m

ora l turpitudeand a ggrav ate d fe lonie s are not prope rly be fore us, be c a

use the a ge nc y

did not make suc h

de te rm inat ions or de ny Linton’ s a pplic ations for re lie f on the se grounds. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 2 5 2 3