CIRO NARCISO-MATIANO, AKA Ciro Matiano, AKA Ciro Narcisco, AKA Ciro Narciso Matiano,… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CIRO NARCISO-MATIANO, AKA Ciro
Matiano, AKA Ciro Narcisco, AKA Ciro
Narciso Matiano, AKA Ciro Narciso-
Matano,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71029
Agency No. A077-961-338
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ciro Narciso-Matiano, a native and citizen of Mexico and a legal permanent
resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71029
for withholding of removal and denying relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Narciso-Matiano’s particularly serious
crime contention. See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448-49 (9th Cir. 2012)
(“[8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(D) cannot restore jurisdiction to review a ‘particularly
serious crime’ determination where” the challenge is that the agency “incorrectly
assessed the facts”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Narciso-Matiano failed to establish it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican
government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --