Saul Alexis Ramirez- Hernandez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL ALEXIS RAMIREZ-
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-74008
Agency No. A044-021-120
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Saul Alexis Ramirez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
MAR 02 2016
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).

-- 1 of 2 --

the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), because Ramirez-Hernandez has not
established that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by, or with the
acquiescence of, the government of El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c),
1208.17(a); Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013). We lack
jurisdiction to review Ramirez-Hernandez’s unexhausted contention that the IJ
used an incorrect standard of proof in determining his eligibility for relief under the
CAT. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks
jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Hernandez’s unexhausted
contention that the IJ failed to conduct an independent assessment of whether his
conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11351.5 constitutes a
particularly serious crime. See Tijani, 628 F.3d at 1080. Ramirez-Hernandez does
not otherwise meaningfully challenge the agency’s particularly serious crime
determination.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
09-74008 2

-- 2 of 2 --