RICARDO MORENO ROMERO, AKA Ricardo Moreno v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO MORENO ROMERO, AKA
Ricardo Moreno,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72856
Agency No. A204-327-879
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Moreno Romero, 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 his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* 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).
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-72856
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d
1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2013). 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.
The BIA determined Moreno Romero is ineligible for asylum based on his
conviction for an aggravated felony. Moreno Romero does not raise any
constitutional challenges or questions of law, so the court lacks jurisdiction to
review his asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D).
With respect to withholding of removal, we reject Moreno Romero’s
contention that, as a matter of law, his conviction cannot be considered a
particularly serious crime because his sentence was for less than five years. See
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (Attorney General may determine an applicant has been
convicted of a particularly serious crime “notwithstanding the length of sentence
imposed”); see also Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941, 947, 949 (9th Cir.
2007). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-72856
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Moreno
Romero’s CAT claim because he 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 Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We
reject Moreno Romero’s contention that the agency did not adequately consider his
evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --