NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CANDIDO PENA RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72682

Agency No. A206

- 356

- 901

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Candido Pena Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigra tion Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of

removal and relief under the Convention A gainst Torture (“CAT”). Our

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes t his case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 72682

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
agency’s particularly serious crime determination and review for substantial

evidence the denial of CAT relief. Konou v. Holder , 750 F.3d 1120, 1124, 1127

(9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petitio n for review.
As to the agency’s particularly serious crime determination, the court’s

review is limited to whether the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper

evidence

. See Avendano

- Hernandez v. Lynch , 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015)

( the court may not reweigh the evidence a nd reach its own conclusion in review of
the agency’s particularly serious crime determination). The agency did not abuse

its discretion i n determining that Ramirez’s conviction under Cal. Penal Code

§ 288(a) is a part icu larly serious crime that rendered him ineligible for withholding

of removal
, where the agency cited to and applied the correct legal analysis to

appropriate record evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) (an applicant
convicted of a particularly serious crime is ineligible for withholding of removal);

Arbid v. Holder , 700 F.3d 379, 385 (9th Cir. 2012) (no abuse of discretion in a

particularly seriou s crime determination where the agency review ed the conviction

and rela ted records); see also Konou , 750 F.3d at 1126

- 27 (listing factors to

consider in determining whether a crime is particularly serious). We do not

address Ramirez’s contentions as to nexus and membership in particular social
groups because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago

-3 16

- 72682

Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision
of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Ram irez’s withholding of removal

claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’ s denial of CAT relief because

Ramirez failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico

. See Garcia

- Milian

v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not compel
conclusion that petitioner established the state action necessary for CAT relief)

. Finally, w e lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez’s unexhausted contention

that the IJ improperly denied voluntary departure. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358

F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not

presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.