Gerardo Jauregui-Montijo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERARDO JAUREGUI-MONTIJO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72466
Agency No. A017-977-481
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gerardo Jauregui-Montijo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable as an alien convicted
of an aggravated felony and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
FILED
OCT 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72466 2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and
review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT relief. Doissaint v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Jauregui-Montijo contends that his carjacking conviction was not an
aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) because his sentence was
vacated by the state court pursuant to California Penal Code § 1203.4(a). Jauregui-
Montijo’s contention concerning his sentence is not supported by the record, and as
he concedes, his conviction retains its immigration consequences despite having
been set aside by the state court. See Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1175
(9th Cir. 2002). We do not reach Jauregui-Montijo’s remaining contentions
concerning his conviction. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.
2004) (per curiam) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the
grounds relied upon by that agency.”).
In light of Jauregui-Montijo’s conviction, the BIA correctly determined that
he was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(b)(2)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Jauregui-Montijo’s
application for CAT relief on the ground that he failed to demonstrate that it is

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72466 3
more likely than not he will be tortured if he is removed to Mexico. See Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“generalized evidence of
violence and crime in Mexico” insufficient to meet petitioner’s burden of proof on
a CAT claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --