Case Name: Jose Arturo ZEPEDA-PUENTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 212 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 04-76190
Parties: Jose Arturo ZEPEDA-PUENTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 212
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
Jose Arturo ZEPEDA-PUENTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76190.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
Zaheer Zaidi, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Mark L. Gross, Esq., Carl A. Anderson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Arturo Zepeda-Puente, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. To the extent we have jurisdiction it arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Zepeda-Puente did not meet his burden of proving it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to El Salvador. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1221 (9th Cir.2005); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
To the extent Zepeda-Puente challenges the BIA's summary affirmance procedure, this contention is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir.2003).
We do not consider Zepeda-Puente's contentions regarding the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen and motion to file a late brief, because he did not petition for review of the BIA's March 10, 2005 decision. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.