Case Name: Jose Guadalupe RUANO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-02
Citations: 637 F. App'x 486
Docket Number: No. 13-74488
Parties: Jose Guadalupe RUANO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
Jose Guadalupe RUANO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-74488.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed March 2, 2016.
Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial, Oil, Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Esquire, Trial, 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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Guadalupe Ruano-Rodriguez, 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 finding him removable and denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) bars jurisdiction over final orders of removal when an alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony, § 1252(a)(2)(D) permits our review of questions of law. Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir.2014). We review de novo questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2012), and review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT relief. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Ruano-Rodriguez's conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11351.5 is -categorically an aggravated felony for illicit trafficking in a controlled substance as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See United States v. Morales-Perez, 467 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a § 11351.5 conviction categorically qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under the Sentencing Guidelines); Rendon v. Muka-sey, 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir.2008) ("[Possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated felony.").
Contrary to Ruano-Rodriguez's contentions, the BIA did not find that his conviction was a per se particularly serious crime that rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal. The BIA applied the correct presumption in Matter of Y-L- 23 I. & N. Dec. 270 (A.G.2002), to determine that his conviction constituted a particularly serious crime. We lack further jurisdiction over Ruano-Rodriguez's withholding of removal claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (barring jurisdiction over final orders of removal when an alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief on the ground that Ruano failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.