JOSE ARMAS-RIVERA, AKA Jose Francisco Armas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ARMAS-RIVERA, AKA Jose
Francisco Armas,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70694
Agency No. A200-977-113
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Armas-Rivera, 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 decision denying his application for asylum,
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
JUL 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70694
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Armas-Rivera’s contentions regarding the
merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims because he failed to raise
them before the BIA. See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[Petitioner’s] failure to assert [a] claim before the BIA deprived it of the
opportunity to address the issue and divests us of jurisdiction to review it.”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Armas-Rivera 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
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized
evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to meet standard for CAT
relief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --