RAUL FIERROS-TORRES, AKA Raul Fierros Torres v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL FIERROS-TORRES, AKA Raul
Fierros Torres,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70191
Agency No. A090-024-387
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Raul Fierros-Torres, 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 protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and for adjustment of status. We
FILED
MAR 03 2016
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 2 --

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we review de novo questions of law, Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832
(9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Fierros-Torres failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Fierros-Torres’s contention that the agency
failed to consider record evidence. Thus, Fierros-Torres’s CAT claim fails.
The BIA also properly affirmed the IJ’s finding that Fierros-Torres was not
eligible for adjustment of status because he failed to show he has a qualifying
relative who could file a preference petition for him. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a);
Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1983) (“the Act’s definition
of ‘child’ includes only stepchildren whose status as such was created by
marriage”). Fierros-Torres’s contention that he is eligible for a waiver of
inadmissibility in order to adjust status is thus moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
15-70191 2

-- 2 of 2 --