Salvador Mendoza-Mejia v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR MENDOZA-MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70966
Agency No. A091-077-435
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Mendoza-Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decisions denying his denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70966
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
agency’s particularly serious crime determination. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379,
383 (9th Cir. 2012). Review is “limited to ensuring that the agency relied on the
appropriate factors and proper evidence to reach [its] conclusion.” Avendano-
Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks
omitted). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo due process
claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining Mendoza-Mejia’s
distribution of methamphetamine conviction is a particularly serious crime that
renders him ineligible for withholding of removal, where drug trafficking crimes
are presumed to be particularly serious, and the agency relied on the appropriate
factors and proper evidence in concluding he failed to rebut that presumption. See
8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2); Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the “strong presumption that drug
trafficking offenses are particularly serious”).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Mendoza-Mejia failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-70966
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Mendoza-Mejia’s challenges to the BIA’s streamlining procedure fail. See
Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA’s
streamlined decision did not violate due process); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --