Jose Soto-Montano v. Loretta E. Lynch , 670 F. App'x 621 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 10 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE SOTO-MONTANO, AKA Jose No. 14-71343
Montano, AKA Jose Soto,
Agency No. A205-710-440
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Soto-Montano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
*
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). Thus, we deny Soto-
Montano’s request for oral argument as set forth in his opening brief.
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Soto-Montano failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured if returned to Mexico. See Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1388,
1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of CAT where “rather than presenting hard
evidence of a probability” of torture, petitioner “merely presented a series of worst-
case scenarios.”). Soto-Montano’s contention that the agency violated his due
process rights is unexhausted so we lack jurisdiction over this claim, see Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004), and his contentions that the IJ ignored
evidence or erred in her analysis are unpersuasive. Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to Soto-Montano’s CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-71343