Raul Barajas Verduzco v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL BARAJAS VERDUZCO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70547
Agency No. A078-100-837
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2017**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Raul Barajas-Verduzco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the immigration judge’s (IJ) negative reasonable fear determination in his
FILED
DEC 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

reinstatement of removal proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
1. The IJ supported her negative reasonable fear determination with
substantial evidence. We uphold an IJ’s ruling unless “any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on the evidence in the
record.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Barajas-Verduzco did not suffer past
persecution; he was not harmed or physically threatened when he lived in Mexico.
The IJ concluded that Barajas-Verduzco did not show that his fear of future
persecution and torture was objectively reasonable. The evidence does not compel
a contrary conclusion. Indeed, that Barajas-Verduzco returned to Mexico for three
months, without harm, supports the IJ’s conclusion.
2. Under the circumstances, we do not have jurisdiction over Barajas-
Verduzco’s due process claims. This court may review a final order of removal
only where the petitioner “has exhausted all administrative remedies available to
[him] as of right.” Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Barajas-Verduzco failed to present his claims before the
IJ, and his claims are not excepted from the exhaustion requirement because they
are procedural in nature. Id. at 1136.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --