Alejandro Antonio Tinoco Martinez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALEJANDRO ANTONIO TINOCO
MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70228
Agency No. A098-268-404
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Antonio Tinoco Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
FILED
JAN 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70228 2
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Tinoco Martinez
did not establish past persecution based on his experiences in Mexico. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Tinoco Martinez failed to establish
a clear probability of future persecution. See id. at 1018 (possibility of future
persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Tinoco Martinez’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Tinoco Martinez did not establish a likelihood of being tortured in Mexico. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to address Tinoco Martinez’s contention that his
criminal conviction did not render him ineligible for adjustment of status in light of
Proposition 36 because this argument was not exhausted before the BIA. See Tall
v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --