eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-05

Livia Pinheiro v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIVIA DE DOS SANTOS PINHEIRO,                   No.    18-72720
AKA Livia Pinheiro, AKA Livia Santos
Pinheiro,                                       Agency No. A073-944-789
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before:      BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Livia De Dos Santos Pinheiro, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
    755 F.3d 1026
    , 1031 (9th Cir. 2014).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Pinheiro 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
Brazil. See Aden v. Holder,
    589 F.3d 1040
    , 1047 (9th Cir. 2009);
    Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 
    (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary
“state action” for CAT relief). The record does not support Pinheiro’s contention
that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her
claim.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Pinheiro’s contentions regarding her gender,
long-term residence in the United States, and that she received ineffective
assistance of counsel because she failed to raise them before the agency. See
Barron v. Ashcroft,
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency); see also Puga v. Chertoff,
    488 F.3d 812
    , 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007) (indicating that ineffective assistance of counsel claims
must be raised in a motion to reopen before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2                                   18-72720