United States v. 2020-06-04 | 19-71266 | BRYAN LIM V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRYAN JEF MATIENZO LIM,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71266

Agency No. A086-931-763

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Bryan Jef Matienzo Lim, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
pro se 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.

*
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

JUN 4 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71266
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s denial of relief under the CAT. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827
F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Lim’s conviction for receipt of stolen property under California Penal Code
§ 496d(a), for which he was sentenced to three years in jail, is categorically an
aggravated felony. See United States v. Flores, 901 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir.
2018). Thus, the court’s review is limited to claims of legal or constitutional error
or the denial of relief for reasons not related to the conviction. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012).
Because Lim is removable for having committed an aggravated felony, we
need not address whether he is also removable for crimes involving moral
turpitude. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Lim contends the agency erred in its particularly serious crime determination
because the records of his convictions do not specify the amount of fraud, he was
not sentenced to an aggregate term of 5 years imprisonment, the agency did not
conduct a modified categorical analysis, and his statutes of conviction are
overbroad. These contentions fail because the agency conducted a case-by-case
particularly serious crime analysis rather than determining his crimes were per se
particularly serious. See Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th

3 19-71266
Cir. 2015) (a crime can be determined to be particularly serious on a per se basis if
it is an aggravated felony with an aggregate sentence of five years, or on a case-by-
case basis by applying appropriate factors).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where Lim
has not shown it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of the Philippine government. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); Zheng
v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2011) (speculative claim of likelihood of
future torture not supported, where expert testimony indicating a likelihood of
torture was not supported by the record).
We lack jurisdiction to review Lim’s unexhausted contention that he is
eligible for cancellation of removal. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080
(9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an
alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
Lim’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. His motion for a stay of
removal is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.