Bernardo Cadena Mercado v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARDO CADENA MERCADO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72965
Agency No. A078-019-680
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Cadena Mercado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-72965 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Cadena Mercado
failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured because he has
not suffered past harm rising to the level of torture, nor has he demonstrated he
would be unable to relocate. See Kumar, 444 F.3d at 1055 (being beaten by police
officers with wooden sticks and leather belts was abuse but did not amount to past
torture); Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner has the
burden to show internal relocation to avoid torture is not possible). Accordingly,
Cadena Mercado’s claim for deferral of removal under CAT fails.
We lack jurisdiction to review Cadena Mercado’s unexhausted due process
claims that the IJ failed to advise him that the proceedings were governed by the
Real ID Act and failed to develop the record adequately. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
The court considered all the arguments Cadena Mercado raised in his brief
filed on March 26, 2013. Thus, we deny as moot Cadena Mercado’s motion to
accept his March 26, 2013, brief as the opening brief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --