PAZUR GUDINO-JAIMES, AKA Pazur Jaime Gudina, AKA Pazur Gudino, AKA Pazur James Gudino v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAZUR GUDINO-JAIMES, AKA Pazur
Jaime Gudina, AKA Pazur Gudino, AKA
Pazur James Gudino,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73666
Agency No. A042-212-633
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Pazur Gudino-Jaimes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73666
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012)
(the 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) jurisdictional bar is subject to two exceptions: 1)
contentions relating to questions of law or constitutional claims, and 2) where the
agency denies relief on the merits). We review de novo questions of law. Bolanos
v. Holder, 734 F.3d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 2013). We review for substantial evidence
the denial of relief under CAT. Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in considering Gudino-Jaimes’s sentence
enhancement in determining that he was convicted of a per se particularly serious
crime, rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2); Konou, 750 F.3d at 1128 (“An
enhanced sentence by its plain language can be considered a type of sentence.”).
Accordingly, the agency did not err in declining to conduct a case-specific analysis
under Matter of Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1982).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gudino-
Jaimes did not show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d
1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --