Gregorio Casillas Escobar v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORIO CASILLAS ESCOBAR, No. 16-72937
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-871-006
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Gregorio Casillas Escobar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal, asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We
review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT relief. Konou v. Holder, 750
F.3d 1120, 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Casillas Escobar’s contention that his conviction under California Health &
Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11359 is not an aggravated felony is foreclosed by
Roman-Suaste v. Holder, 766 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Because
‘possession for sale’ under CHSC § 11359 necessarily comprises only possession
with intent to distribute marijuana in exchange for remuneration, convictions under
that provision categorically qualify as aggravated felonies.”). To the extent Casillas
Escobar urges us to reconsider our holding in Roman-Suaste v. Holder, a three-
judge panel cannot overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening
decision from a higher court or en banc decision of this court. See Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the agency did not err in
finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal and asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1229b(a); 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i).
Casillas Escobar does not raise, and thus waives, any challenge to the
agency’s determination that his conviction is a particularly serious crime that
renders him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii)
(withholding of removal is not available to an alien who has been convicted of a
2 16-72937
particularly serious crime); Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are
waived).
Casillas Escobar does not raise, and thus waives, any challenge to the
agency’s denial of CAT relief based on the determination that he did not show
sufficient evidence that any harm he would suffer upon return to Mexico would
rise to the level of torture. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80; Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (court’s review is limited to the actual
grounds relied upon by the BIA).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Casillas Escobar’s contentions
regarding his membership in a particular social group or the likelihood of
government involvement in the harm he fears. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-
dispositive issues).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-72937