JOSE ARELLANO-CARDENAS, AKA Jose Ramos-Gonzalez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ARELLANO-CARDENAS, AKA Jose
Ramos-Gonzalez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71261
Agency No. A091-691-292
MEMORANDUM0F
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023*1
F
*
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Arellano-Cardenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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
APR 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71261
(“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand and terminate. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109
(9th Cir. 2012). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to remand
and to terminate proceedings. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th
Cir. 2005); Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not err by admitting into evidence documentation of
Arellano-Cardenas’s 1992 and 2015 convictions. See Sanchez, 704 F.3d at 1109
(“[T]he sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and
its admission is fundamentally fair.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(3)(B), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.41(d). Thus,
Arellano-Cardenas has not established any error in the agency’s conclusion that he
is removable. See Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Arellano-Cardenas failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arellano-Cardenas’s motion

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71261
to remand and terminate where his contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over
his proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th
1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice
to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and
8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --