Miguel Angel Quezada v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL QUEZADA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72674
Agency No. A078-008-133
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Quezada, 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 ineligible for asylum and withholding of
removal, and denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
* 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
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-72674
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
agency’s particularly serious crime determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch,
800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Quezada’s
conviction for possession of cocaine for sale under California Health and Safety
Code § 11351 was a particularly serious crime, where drug trafficking crimes are
presumed to be particularly serious, and the BIA considered the correct factors in
concluding Quezada failed to rebut that presumption. See Miguel-Miguel v.
Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the “strong presumption”
that drug trafficking offenses are particularly serious); Avendano-Hernandez, 800
F.3d at 1077 (“Our review is limited to ensuring that the agency relied on the
appropriate factors and proper evidence to reach this conclusion.” (internal
quotations omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where
Quezada failed to show that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of a government official in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1); Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. The record does not support Quezada’s
contention that the agency failed to consider his claim in the totality. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-72674
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency must consider
the issues raised and express its decision “in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing
court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation
and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --