Amit Kumar v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMIT KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72294
Agency No. A041-813-545
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Amit Kumar, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
* 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
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72294
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385-86 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of protection under the
CAT, where the evidence shows only the general possibility of torture, and not a
likelihood that Kumar will be targeted for harm. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457
F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006) (general reports indicating torture occurs in an
alien’s home country do not compel conclusion a particular alien will be targeted);
Arbid, 700 F.3d at 385-86 (to reverse the agency’s factual findings, the record must
compel a contrary conclusion).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kumar’s contentions regarding the agency’s
denial of asylum and withholding of removal, where Kumar was found removable
for having a conviction relating to a controlled substance and was denied relief
based on the same conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (court does not have
jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against an alien who is removable
for having committed certain criminal offenses); Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876,
879 (9th Cir. 2015) (aliens removable for committing a crime relating to a
controlled substance are subject to the § 1252(a)(2)(C) jurisdictional bar). Kumar
fails to raise a legal or constitutional challenge to invoke jurisdiction. See
Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[8 U.S.C.]

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72294
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) cannot restore jurisdiction to review a ‘particularly serious crime’
determination where, as here, the only challenge to that determination is that it
incorrectly assessed the facts”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --