Tomas Lundes Perez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMAS LUNDES PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72659
Agency No. A077-056-012
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Lundes Perez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying withholding of removal and deferral
of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72659
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s
particularly serious crime determination and review for substantial evidence the
denial of relief under CAT. Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Lundes Perez’s
conviction is a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for
withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) (alien convicted of a
particularly serious crime is ineligible for withholding of removal); Konou, 750
F.3d at 1126-27 (listing factors to consider in determining whether a crime is
particularly serious). Contrary to Lundes Perez’s contentions, the record does not
show that the BIA failed to address whether the circumstances of his crime
indicated he would be a danger to the community, engaged in impermissible fact
finding, or erroneously indicated Lundes Perez did not challenge the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under the CAT,
where Lundes Perez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would
be tortured upon returning to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of
violence and crime that is not particular to the alien is not sufficient to meet the
standard for CAT protection).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --