Court Opinion

ID: 9841506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 18:00:39.515577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:29.822209
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MANUEL ARENAS-PINZON,                      No. 21-192
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A060-306-570
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Manuel Arenas-Pinzon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral under the Convention Against

      *
             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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo claims of due process

violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535

(9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

      Because Arenas-Pinzon does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum

and withholding of removal, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,

706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal

under CAT because Arenas-Pinzon failed to show it is more likely than not he will

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Arenas-Pinzon’s claim the IJ violated due process by applying the incorrect

legal standard fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v.

Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a

petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

      Arenas-Pinzon’s contentions that the IJ failed to develop the record and

failed to consider evidence are not properly before the court because he failed to

raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of

administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,

                                        2                                    21-192
598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-

processing rule).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                       3                                   21-192