N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE ZAM OR

A-C HAVEZ, Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-74144 Age n c y No. A043-363-407 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 De c e m

be r 7, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, NGUYEN, a nd OW ENS, C irc u it Judge s. Jose Zam o ra -C have z , a

M e xic an c itiz e n and a la w ful pe rm ane nt re side nt, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA)’ s dism issa l of his a ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge(IJ)’ s (1) finding tha t Zam ora -C have z is ine ligible for a d isc re tiona

ry wa ive r of de porta

tion unde r the form e r Imm i gra tion a n d 

# FIL ED D EC 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Na tiona l ity

Ac t (INA) § 212(c ), a

nd (2) de nia l of Za

m ora -C have z ’ s a

pplic at ion for de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). B e c a use the pa rtie s are fa m ilia

r with thefa c ts, we do not re c ount the m he re . B e c a use the B IA c onduc te d its own re vie wof the e vide nc e and la w ra the r tha n sim ply a dopting the

IJ’ s de c ision, this c ourt’ s “ re vie w is limite d to the B IA’ s de c ision, e xc e pt to thee xte nt the IJ’ s opinion is e xpre ssly a dopte d.” Hosse i ni v . Gonzale s , 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion om i tte d). W e re vie w the B IA’ s fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e and re vie w its le g a l c onc lusions de novo. Garc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th C ir. 2014). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny the pe tition. First, the B IA did not e rr in finding tha t Zam o ra -C have z is ine ligible for re lie f unde r § 212(c ). W he n Za m ora -C have z e nte re d his ple a of no c onte st to a c ontrolle d substa

nc e c h arge in August 1996, a nd whe n his deporta

tion proc e e dings c om m e n c e d in De c e m

be r 1996, § 440(d) of the

Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De a th Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA) ba rre d him from re c e iving re lie f in the form of a § 212(c ) wa ive r be c a

use he wa s a

n “ a lie n who [wa s] de porta ble by re a son of having c o m

m itte d a ny c rim i na l offe nse c ove re d in” INA § 241(a )(2)(B )(i), now c odifie d at 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(B )(i). 2Ne ithe r the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in IN S v . St. C y r , 533 U.S. 289 (2001), nor this c ourt’ s de c ision in Pasc ua v . Holde r , 641 F.3d 316 (9th C ir. 2011), c ha nge s this re sult. The s e de c isions e s ta blish tha t an a lie n who wa s e ligible for § 212(c ) re l ie f a t the tim e he or she e nte re d a guilty ple a re m a i ns e l igible for tha t re lie f e ve n if de porta

tion proc e e dings we re c om m e nc e d a fte r the e ffe c tive date of the Ille ga l Im

m igration R e form

and Im m igra nt R e sponsibility

Ac t of 1996 (IIR IR A), St. C y r , 533 U.S. a

t 326, or if de

porta tion proc e e d ings c om

m e nc e d be fore tha

t da te and de p ortation c ha

rge s we re a dde d

ba se d on post-IIR

IR A c onvic tions, Pasc ua , 641 F.3d a t 319; howe v e r, ne ithe r de c ision a llows re lie f for an a l ie n who wa s not e ligible for a wa ive r unde r § 212(c ) in the first insta n c e . Zam ora -C hav e z wa s not e ligible for suc h re l ie f be c a

use he e nte re d his no c onte st ple a subje c t to § 440(d) of AEDPA a nd its withdra

wa l of e ligibility

for § 212(c ) re lie f from

a l ie ns c onvic t e d of a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e c rim e . Se e Matte r of Abde lghany , 26 I. & N. De c . 254, 271-72 (B IA 2014); se e also 8 U.S.C . § 1182(c ) (1996). The re fore , the B IA c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Zam ora -C have z is ine ligible for re lie f unde r INA § 212(c ). Se c ond, for the C AT c l a im , the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t it wa s not m ore like ly tha n not tha t Za m ora -C have z would be torture d upon re turn to M e xic o wa s supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . The C AT de fine s torture a s “ an e xtre m e form 3of c rue l a

nd inhum a

n tre a tm e nt,” and re quire s tha t it ha ve be e n “ spe c ific a lly inte nde d to inflic t

se ve re phy sic a l or m e nta l pa in or suffe ring.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a). As the IJ found a nd the B IA a ffirm e d, Za

m ora -C have z fa ile d to c arry his burde n of e sta

blishing tha

t he wa s m ore like ly

tha n not to be torture d ba se d on his (1) m e nta l illne ss, (2) bise xua l ity , or (3) fore i gn or “ Am e ric a n iz e d” a ppe aranc e . Se e8 C . F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2) (burde n of proof on a p plic ant); se e also 8 C .F.R . § 1208.17(a) (a

pplic a nt who e sta

blishe s e ligibility

for C AT withholding but is subje c t

to m andat ory

de nia l sha ll be grante d C A T de fe rra l ). Zam ora -C hav e z ’ s c onte ntions re ga rding his m e nta l illne ss we re too spe c ulative to c arry

his burde n of proof, pa

rtic ula rly be c a use pe titione r did not know how m

uc h his m e dic a tion would c ost in M e x ic o a nd sim p ly the oriz e d tha

t he would be una

ble to obta in it a

nd would the n

be torture d . Se e Xiao Fe i Zhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th C ir. 2011) (finding tha t the pe titione r’ s “ c la im s of possibletorture re m a i n[e d] spe c ulative ” and the re fore did not c om pe l re ve rsa l); se e a lso Maroufi v. IN

S , 772 F.2d 597, 599 (9th C ir. 1985) (re je c ting a n a sy lum a pplic a tion tha

t “ c onsiste d sole ly

of c onc lusory

and spe c ulative infe re nc e s dra wn from ge ne ra liz e d e ve nts” ). Furthe rm o re , e ve n if Za m ora -C hav e z e sta

blishe d tha

t he would be institutiona

liz e d a n d tha t the c onditions of the

institution would am ount to torture , he fa ile d to e sta blish tha t the M e xic an gove rnm e nt c re a te d the 4c onditions with the spe c i fic inte nt of torturing the institution’ s pa

tie nts. Se e Ville gas v . Muk

ase y , 523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th C ir. 2008). W ith re spe c t to his bise xua lity , Zam ora -C h ave z showe d tha t disc rim ination a ga inst LGB T individuals e xists in M e xic o, but fa ile d to e s ta blish tha t (1) the disc rim ination rise s to the le ve l of torture , or (2) it is so wide spre a d a s to m ake it m ore like ly

tha n not tha t pe titione r would him se lf be torture d . Se e Alphonsus v . Holde r , 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th C ir. 2013). Simila rly , Zam ora -C hav e z fa ile d to e sta blish tha t a ny kidna pping of fore i gn na

t iona ls (1) would a

m ount to torture , or (2) wa s so wide spre a d a s to m ake it m ore like l y tha n not tha t it would ha

ppe n to him . Ac c ordingly , the re c ord doe s not c om p e l re ve rsa l of the B IA’ s de c ision. Se e Garc ia , 749 F.3d a

t 789 (this c ourt upholds the B IA’ s fa c t

ua l findings “

unle ss a ny re a s ona ble a djudic a tor would bec o m pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry ” (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ))). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

5