NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSENDO OBREGON-LUNA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71380 

Agency No. A087-747-617 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Rosendo Obregon-Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71380 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and 

questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. 

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Obregon-Luna has not shown an egregious circumstance that would warrant 

withdrawal of his pleadings, where he failed to show that his prior counsel’s 

performance was deficient. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 830-

32 (9th Cir. 2011) (absent egregious circumstances, an attorney’s admission or 

concession is binding on an alien); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (to prevail on an 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel 

failed to perform with sufficient competence and that he was prejudiced by 

counsel’s performance); Torres-Chavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1101-02 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (counsel’s tactical decision was not ineffective assistance of counsel).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Obregon-Luna 

failed to show changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application, 

where he failed to show how the recent extortion of his brother materially affected

his eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Vahora v. Holder, 641 

F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (an alien may qualify for an exception to the filing 

deadline if he demonstrates the existence of changed circumstances which 

materially affect his eligibility for asylum).
3 17-71380 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of 

removal, where Obregon-Luna failed to show a nexus to a protected ground. See 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under CAT, 

where Obregon-Luna failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See 

Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. 

The record does not support Obregon-Luna’s contention that the agency 

failed to consider legal arguments or sufficiently explain its reasoning. See 

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency must consider 

the issues raised and express its decision “in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing 

court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.