EDUARDO JIMENEZ-REYES, AKA Gerardo Jimenez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO JIMENEZ-REYES, AKA
Gerardo Jimenez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73674
Agency No. A077-975-154
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.
Eduardo Jimenez-Reyes, 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 denying his application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
NOV 24 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 --

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding changed and
extraordinary circumstances. Castro-Martinez, 674 F.3d 1073, 1080 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the delay of more than six
years in filing Jimenez-Reyes’ asylum application after his brother’s attack was
reasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a); see also Sumolong v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080,
1082-83 (9th Cir. 2013). We lack jurisdiction to review Jimenez-Reyes’ claim that
being placed in removal proceedings constituted an extraordinary circumstance
because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below).
Jimenez-Reyes fears he will be harmed by enemies of his father. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Jimenez-Reyes did not establish that
the source of his persecution was government officials or individuals the Mexican
government is unable or unwilling to control. See Castro-Martinez, 674 F.3d at
1079-1081. Thus, Jimenez-Reyes’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Further, Jimenez-Reyes failed to show that he will be tortured at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. See Garcia-
13-73674 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Milian, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, Reyes’ CAT claim also
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-73674 3

-- 3 of 3 --