NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIKA LIZETH ESPINOZA, AKA Ericka No. 18-70232 Lizeth Espinoza-Lopez, AKA Erika Lizeth Espinoza-Lopez, AKA Erica E. Lopez, AKA Agency No. A097-739-350 Erika Lopez, AKA Erika Espinoza Lopez, AKA Erika Lopez-Espinoza,

MEMORANDUM*

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Erika Lizeth Espinoza, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

* 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). immigration judge’s decision finding her ineligible for withholding of removal and

denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s

particularly serious crime determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d

1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s

factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny

the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Espinoza’s

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine under

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 was a particularly serious crime rendering her

ineligible for withholding of removal and concluding that Espinoza failed to rebut

the presumption under Matter of Y-L-. See Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077

(“Our review is limited to ensuring that the agency relied on the appropriate factors

and proper evidence to reach this conclusion.” (internal quotations omitted));

Matter of Y-L, A-G-, & R-S-R-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 276-77 (A.G. 2002) (drug

trafficking offenses are presumptively particularly serious crimes).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Espinoza failed to show that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or

2 18-70232 with the acquiescence of the government of Honduras. See Aden v. Holder, 589

F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject Espinoza’s contention regarding her prior removal in 2015.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 18-70232