SERPAS HERNANDEZ v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Jesus Serpas-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador and a legal permanent resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 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 CAT relief. Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1127, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in determining Serpas-Hernandez’s conviction is a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal, where the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence in reaching its conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2); Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (the court’s review of the agency’s discretionary particularly serious crime determination is limited to ensuring the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence).

Because the particularly serious crime determination is dispositive, we do not, and the BIA was not required to, address Serpas-Hernandez’s other contentions regarding eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, where Serpas-Hernandez did not show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014). To the extent Serpas-Hernandez contends the agency insufficiently explained its decision, this contention is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.