RICHARD VENTURA-ALVAREZ, AKA Richard Alvarez, AKA Edwin Eduardo Avila-Tellez, AKA… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD VENTURA-ALVAREZ, AKA
Richard Alvarez, AKA Edwin Eduardo
Avila-Tellez, AKA Richard G. Ventura,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71465
Agency No. A099-476-840
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Richard Ventura-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010). We dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ventura-Alvarez’s contentions regarding his
CAT claim because he failed to challenge the denial of CAT relief before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that petitioner’s
failure to exhaust administrative remedies precludes review).
As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not have the benefit of this
court’s decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356-60 (9th Cir.
2017), when it issued its order. Thus, we grant the petition for review as to
withholding of removal, and remand this claim to the BIA to determine the impact
of this decision. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
We do not reach the agency’s adverse credibility finding.
Each party shall bear its own costs in this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --