Adolfo Joaquin Macias- Madrigal v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADOLFO JOAQUIN MACIAS-
MADRIGAL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73062
Agency No. A204-709-447
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Adolfo Joaquin Macias-Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-73062
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Because Macias-Madrigal conceded he was removable based on a reason to
believe he is a drug trafficker, an offense covered in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C), we
lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of
removal where Macias-Madrigal’s contentions do not raise a colorable legal or
constitutional claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). To the extent Macias-
Madrigal challenges the particularly serious crime determination, we lack
jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency); see
also Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448–49 (9th Cir. 2012) (no jurisdiction to
review particularly serious crime determination where there is no assertion of legal
or constitutional error and petitioner sought “re-weighing of the factors involved in
that discretionary determination”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral of
removal because Macias-Madrigal failed to show it is more likely than not he

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-73062
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --