NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE MANUEL ARENAS-PINZON, No. 21-192

Agency No.

Petitioner, A060-306-570 v.

MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 12, 2023** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Manuel Arenas-Pinzon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral under the Convention Against

*

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). Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

Because Arenas-Pinzon does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Arenas-Pinzon failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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).

Arenas-Pinzon’s claim the IJ violated due process by applying the incorrect legal standard fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

Arenas-Pinzon’s contentions that the IJ failed to develop the record and failed to consider evidence are not properly before the court because he failed to raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,

2 21-192 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim- processing rule).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 21-192