U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2015

Cristobal Campos-Avalos v. Loretta E. Lynch

Cristobal Campos-Avalos v. Loretta E. Lynch
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 25, 2015 · Reinhardt, Leavy, Berzon
617 F. App'x 819

Cristobal Campos-Avalos v. Loretta E. Lynch

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Cristobal Campos-Avalos, 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 denial of his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 2007), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003); We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny a waiver under former INA § 212(c). Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 923 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). Although this Court retains jurisdiction to review color-able questions of law or constitutional claims, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Campos-Avalos’s contention that the agency failed to consider all the relevant factors in exercising its discretion is not supported by the record. Mendez-Castro v. Muka-sey, 552 F.3d 975, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2009). Campos-Avalos’s remaining challenges to *820 the agency’s discretionary decision are not colorable constitutional or legal challenges that invoke our jurisdiction. See id.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief where Campos-Avalos failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Mexico. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.8d 713, 721-22 (9th Cir. 2004).

Campos-Avalos’s contention that the BIA failed to consider- evidence submitted with his motion to remand is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.