JOSE LUJAN-LUJAN V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-70736 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ANTONIO LUJAN-LUJAN, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-70736 Agency No. A200-188-051 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Jose Antonio Lujan-Lujan, 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 application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We do not consider the factual allegations Lujan-Lujan raises for the first time on appeal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record). We lack jurisdiction to consider Lujan-Lujan’s contention as to humanitarian asylum because he never raised this claim to the agency. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (court lacks jurisdiction to review issues or claims not presented to the agency). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Lujan-Lujan’s challenges to the IJ’s particularly serious crime determination and withholding of removal because, as the BIA found, he failed to challenge these findings on appeal. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lujan-Lujan failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return to Mexico, either by the Mexican government or with its consent or 2 17-70736 acquiescence. See Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining standard for deferral of removal under CAT); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 17-70736
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
