Raul Garcia-Urbina v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Raul Garcia-Urbina v. Loretta E. Lynch

637 F. App'x 394

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

Docket12-72407

StatusUnpublished

This text of 637 F. App'x 394 (Raul Garcia-Urbina v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Raul Garcia-Urbina v. Loretta E. Lynch, 637 F. App'x 394 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

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.

*395 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

*395 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 F. App'x 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raul-garcia-urbina-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack