ARELLANO GOMEZ v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Aldo Daniel Arellano-Gomez, 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 denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings underlying its CAT eligibility determination. Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Arellano-Gomez’s unexhausted contention that the agency erred in applying the presumption that his conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11359 is a particularly serious crime because he contends it is not an aggravated felony drug trafficking crime. 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.”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arellano-Gomez has not established the Mexican government would consent or acquiesce to any torture he may face if returned to Mexico. See Konou, 750 F.3d at 1124 (“Under the substantial evidence standard, the court upholds the BIA’s determination unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.”). The record does not support Arellano-Gomez’s contention that the BIA ignored evidence. In light of this determination, we need not address Arellano-Gomez’s contention that the agency erred in its application of Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 912 (AG 2006), to its analysis of the likelihood that he would be tortured upon his return to Mexico. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.