Case Name: Raul GARCIA-URBINA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-23
Citations: 637 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 12-72407
Parties: Raul GARCIA-URBINA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges and PRATT, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
Raul GARCIA-URBINA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72407.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2016.
Filed Feb. 23, 2016.
Alex Galvez, Counsel, Law Office Alex Galvez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Jennifer Parker Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland’ Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges and PRATT, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raul Garcia-Urbina appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision to deny his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Garcia-Urbina asserts that the immigration judge improperly denied his repeated requests for a change of venue, deprived him of his right to counsel, and deprived him of due process by failing to ensure that he had access to mailed documents that might have supported his CAT application. Garcia-Urbina, however, did not raise any of these claims in his appeal to the BIA. Because the BIA could have corrected these alleged errors if given the opportunity, we lack jurisdiction to review them. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Vargas v. I.N.S., 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987)).
The judicially noticeable documents in the record established that the substance at issue in Garcia-Urbina's conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance under California Health & Safety Code § 11378 was methamphetamine. The BIA therefore did not err in finding that Garcia-Urbina's state conviction would be punishable as a felony under the Controlled Substances Act, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and in turn, constituted an aggravated felony pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Garcia-Urbina is ineligible for deferral of removal under CAT. The record does not support a conclusion that it is more, likely than not that Garcia-Urbina would face abuse or discrimination rising to the level of torture if returned to Mexico, or that he more likely than not would face torture "by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); see also Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.