Case Name: Jesus LEMUS-EVERADO, a.k.a. Everado De Jesus Lemus, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-22
Citations: 543 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 07-74119
Parties: Jesus LEMUS-EVERADO, a.k.a. Everado De Jesus Lemus, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
Jesus LEMUS-EVERADO, a.k.a. Everado De Jesus Lemus, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74119.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2013.
Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
Kari Elisabeth Hong, Law Offices of Kari E. Hong, Redlands, CA, for Petitioner.
Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, Chief District Judge.
The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesus Lemus-Everado petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of Lemus's application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The BIA's decision that Lemus had not established that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if removed to Guatemala was supported by substantial evidence. Both the BIA and the IJ carefully considered the evidence presented by Lemus, including the testimony of an expert witness, and found it unpersuasive. The BIA thus properly determined that Lemus had not made the showing necessary to obtain CAT relief.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.