SALVADOR JESUS SERPAS- HERNANDEZ, AKA Salvador Jesus Sepras-Hernandez, AKA Salvador… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR JESUS SERPAS-
HERNANDEZ, AKA Salvador Jesus
Sepras-Hernandez, AKA Salvador Serpas,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70355
Agency No. A092-785-014
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Jesus Serpas-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador and a
legal permanent resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
* 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).
FILED
MAR 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70355
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly
serious crime determination and review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT
relief. Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1127, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de
novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in determining Serpas-
Hernandez’s conviction is a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible
for asylum and withholding of removal, where the agency relied on the appropriate
factors and proper evidence in reaching its conclusion. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2); Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800
F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (the court’s review of the agency’s discretionary
particularly serious crime determination is limited to ensuring the agency relied on
the appropriate factors and proper evidence).
Because the particularly serious crime determination is dispositive, we do
not, and the BIA was not required to, address Serpas-Hernandez’s other
contentions regarding eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where
Serpas-Hernandez did not show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70355
or with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. See Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014). To the extent Serpas-Hernandez
contends the agency insufficiently explained its decision, this contention is not
supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.
2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently
announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --