NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SOCORRO OSUNA DE VILLA, No. 17-71739

Petitioner, Agency No. A087-141-094

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Socorro Osuna de Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

* 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). jurisdiction is governed by

. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr,

(9th Cir. 2020). We dismiss in part and

deny in part the petition for review.

Because Osuna de Villa was found removable for an offense involving

moral turpitude and a crime related to a controlled substance, our jurisdiction to

review the agency’s particularly serious crime determination is limited to colorable

constitutional claims and questions of law. See

(a)(2)(C)-(D);

Pechenkov v. Holder,

(9th Cir. 2012). We reject as

unsupported by the record Osuna de Villa’s contentions that the agency violated

her right to due process, considered improper evidence or otherwise erred in its

analysis of her claims. Bare v. Barr,

(9th Cir. 2020) (all reliable

information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime

determination). Thus, her asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

(b)(2)(A)(ii); 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii);

(d)(2).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral of

removal because Osuna de Villa failed to show it is more likely than not she would

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder,

(9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

2 17-71739