Salvador Elizandro Cruz- Lopez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SALVADOR ELIZANDRO CRUZ-
LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70224
Agency No. A091-616-480
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Elizandro Cruz-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70224 2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006), and de novo questions of law, Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403,
411 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Because Cruz-Lopez is removable based on his conviction relating to a
controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), our jurisdiction is
limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Cruz-Lopez’s contention that the agency
erred in its determination that he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime
does not raise a constitutional claim or colorable question of law that would invoke
our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705
F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012) (no jurisdiction to review “particularly serious
crime” determination where the only challenge is that the agency incorrectly
assessed the facts).
With respect to Cruz-Lopez’s request for deferral of removal under CAT,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cruz-Lopez failed to
establish it is more likely than not he faces torture if removed to El Salvador. See
Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --