Eulet King v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EULET KING, No. 19-72283
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-776-748
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Eulet King, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
King does not challenge the agency’s determination that she was convicted
of a particularly serious crime that rendered her ineligible for asylum and
withholding of removal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to her asylum and withholding
of removal claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because King failed to show it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Jamaica. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of
torture too speculative).
The BIA properly concluded that King could not collaterally challenge her
convictions before the agency. See Ortega de Robles v. INS, 58 F.3d 1355, 1358
(9th Cir. 1995) (“Criminal convictions cannot be collaterally attacked in
deportation proceedings.”); see also Matter of Cuellar-Gomez, 25 I. & N. Dec.
850, 854-55 (BIA 2012) (agency cannot entertain claims of constitutional error in
underlying criminal conviction).
We reject King’s contention that the government waived its arguments by
2 19-72283
failing to file a brief with the BIA.
The record does not support King’s contention that the agency failed to
consider evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of her claims.
As stated in the court’s November 15, 2019 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-72283