EPIGMENIO RIOS-SIERRA, AKA Epimenio Rios, AKA Antonio Martines, AKA Sergio Rosales,… v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EPIGMENIO RIOS-SIERRA, AKA
Epimenio Rios, AKA Antonio Martines,
AKA Sergio Rosales, AKA Juan Garcia
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72503
Agency No. A091-865-390
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Epigmenio Rios-Sierra, 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 application for protection
FILED
JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2013).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo claims of
due process violations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Rios-Sierra’s CAT claim
because Rios-Sierra did not establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Zheng v.
Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011). The record does not support Rios-
Sierra’s contentions that the agency’s analysis was deficient. We reject Rios-
Sierra’s contentions that the IJ did not allow him to present his claim and exhibited
bias. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
We do not consider new evidence Rios-Sierra references in his opening brief
because our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the agency’s
decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
14-72503 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, based on respondent’s statement that Rios-Sierra has been released
from detention, Rios-Sierra’s request for a bond hearing is moot. See Picrin-Peron
v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-72503 3

-- 3 of 3 --