Jose Alfredo Hernandez- Carrillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALFREDO HERNANDEZ-
CARRILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-2008
Agency No.
A095-749-080
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alfredo Hernandez-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without
opinion an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
* 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
OCT 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-2008
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Because Hernandez-Carrillo does not challenge the agency’s dispositive
particularly serious crime determination, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez
v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Hernandez-Carrillo failed to show it is more likely than not he
will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see
also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
Hernandez-Carrillo’s request for appointment of counsel contained in his
opening brief is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --