NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE LUIS MORA-FRAGA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72732 

Agency No. A089-111-597 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 29, 2021**

San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,*** District Judge.

Jorge Luis Mora-Fraga seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying

* 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).

*** The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the U.S. 

District Court for Southern Florida, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 2 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

cancellation, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and due 

process claims and legal questions de novo. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 

1011–12 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny 

the petition.

Mora-Fraga argues that the BIA ignored some of his arguments and that 

both the BIA and the IJ ignored record evidence. Although the BIA did not 

expressly discuss each of Mora-Fraga’s arguments, it satisfied the requirement to 

“consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable 

a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” 

Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004). As to the record 

evidence, we “presume[] that the [agency] thoroughly considers all relevant 

evidence in the record” unless there is an indication to the contrary—and here there 

is none. Szonyi v. Barr, 942 F.3d 874, 897 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Cole v. 

Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Such indications include misstating 

the record and failing to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive 

evidence.”).

Mora-Fraga also argues that the agency committed legal error by giving 

limited weight to the expert report and by not hearing the expert’s testimony. The 

agency offered a specific and legitimate explanation for giving limited weight to
3 

the report: it contained “conclusory statements without citations to any supporting 

authority.” Mora-Fraga’s attempt to analogize this to Castillo v. Barr is unavailing 

because faulting a report for not finding support in the record (as in Castillo) is 

materially different than faulting a report for not citing sufficient supporting 

authority in general (as occurred here). 980 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2020).

Contrary to Mora-Fraga’s claim, the IJ was willing to hear testimony from the 

expert, but Mora-Fraga, through counsel, did not seek to introduce the expert’s 

testimony and agreed at the conclusion of the hearing that he had no further 

testimony to present. 

The absence of legal error as to the consideration of arguments, evidence, 

and the expert testimony defeats Mora-Fraga’s challenge to the agency’s 

government protection analysis, and in turn defeats his challenge to the denial of 

withholding of removal. See Velasquez-Gaspar v Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064–65 

(9th Cir. 2020) (holding that withholding of removal turns on whether government 

would have been unable or unwilling to protect the applicant). Because MoraFraga also relies on these alleged errors to challenge the denial of CAT protection

and the denial of discretionary cancellation of removal, those claims fail as well. 

PETITION DENIED.1

1 Mora-Fraga’s motion for stay of removal (Dkt. No. 5) is denied as moot.