Irineo Ruiz-Cisneros v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRINEO RUIZ-CISNEROS,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71721
Agency No. A036-642-261
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Irineo Ruiz-Cisneros, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
* 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
FEB 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71721
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 deny the
petition for review.
Ruiz-Cisneros does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that
his convictions for attempted premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit
murder in violation of California Penal Code §§ 664 and 187(a), and 182(1) and
187(a), are aggravated felonies that make him statutorily ineligible for asylum. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). He also does
not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his convictions are
particularly serious crimes that make him ineligible for withholding of removal and
CAT withholding. See id.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal
under CAT because Ruiz-Cisneros 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 Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(claims of possible torture speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
//

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71721
1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in petitioner’s
home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief). His contention
that the agency did not apply the proper legal standard is unsupported.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --