SERGIO RENE DE JESUS-SANCHEZ, AKA Sergio De Jesus Sanchez, AKA Sergio Sanchez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO RENE DE JESUS-SANCHEZ,
AKA Sergio De Jesus Sanchez, AKA
Sergio Sanchez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71955
Agency No. A201-034-208
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2015 **
San Francisco California
Before: NOONAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District
Judge.***
FILED
JAN 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Sergio Rene De Jesus-Sanchez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ decision denying withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss in part and deny in part.
We lack jurisdiction to review an order of removal against an alien
removable for having committed an aggravated felony, except over constitutional
or legal claims or when denial of relief is on the merits of the claim. U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2014).
To the extent De Jesus-Sanchez disputes the weight given to each piece of
evidence about the loaded gun and the non-violent nature of his crime, we dismiss
his challenge to the BIA’s conclusion that he committed a particularly serious
crime and was ineligible for withholding of removal. To the extent De Jesus-
Sanchez raises legal challenges to the BIA’s conclusion, his claims lack merit. The
BIA relied on reliable evidence and considered relevant factors.
We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture because it was a decision on the merits. See
Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2008). Substantial
evidence supported the BIA’s denial. Although De Jesus-Sanchez presented
evidence that he is at risk of being attacked upon return to Mexico, this evidence
did not compel a finding that he more likely than not would be tortured. Further,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

the evidence did not suggest De Jesus-Sanchez would be tortured “by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.” See
Kalmathas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2001).
Petition DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3

-- 3 of 3 --