United States v. 2020-07-22 | 19-70003 | ANDRES LUJANO MUNOZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES LUJANO MUNOZ, AKA Andres
Lujano, AKA Lujano Munoz,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70003

Agency No. A206-402-877

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Andres Lujano Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

*
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

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-70003
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya
v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo due process
claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lujano Munoz failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lujano Munoz’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise
erred in its analysis of his case are unsupported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.