VILLANUEVA LEYVA v. WILKINSON (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Omar Villanueva-Leyva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that Villanueva-Leyva failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”). Thus, Villanueva-Leyva's withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Villanueva-Leyva failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

Villanueva-Leyva's contentions that the BIA engaged in improper factfinding, failed to consider evidence, or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims fail. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

As stated in the court's December 15, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.