Jonathan Adrian Raya- Mendoza v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN ADRIAN RAYA-
MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72748
Agency No. A200-195-262
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.
Jonathan Adrian Raya-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-72748
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 Raya-
Mendoza’s conviction is a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for
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) (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; the court may not reweigh the evidence).
Because the particularly serious crime determination is dispositive, we do
not, and the BIA was not required to, address Raya-Mendoza’s other contentions
regarding eligibility for 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
Raya-Mendoza 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,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-72748
755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014).
We do not reach Raya-Mendoza’s contentions regarding the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination, where the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision or discuss
credibility. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009) (the court
reviews only the BIA decision if the BIA wrote its own decision); Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (review is limited to the actual grounds
relied upon by the BIA).
The Clerk shall mail a copy of this memorandum to Raya-Mendoza at both
699 Manecita Circle, Perris, CA, 92571, and 2577 Elwood Court, Perris, CA,
92571.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --