Santiago Osorio-Avila v. Loretta E. Lynch , 668 F. App'x 308 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO OSORIO-AVILA, AKA No. 14-73073
Santiago Osorio,
Agency No. A098-569-680
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Osorio-Avila, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge Osorio-Avila makes to the IJ’s
past persecution finding because he did not distinctly raise the issue to the BIA.
Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring issue
exhaustion).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Osorio-Avila failed to
establish a clear probability of future persecution if he returns to Mexico. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Osorio-
Avila’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Osorio-Avila failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the Mexican government if he is removed to Mexico. See
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of
CAT relief where similarly-situated family member remained safely in hometown),
abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.
2013) (en banc). Thus, we also deny the petition for review as to Osorio-Avila’s
CAT claim.
2 14-73073
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-73073