NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARLOS FONSECA-MARTINEZ, No. 18-70344 AKA Armando Fonseca, AKA Carlos Fonseca Martinez, AKA Juan Martinez, Agency No. A090-058-960

Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Fonseca-Martinez, 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

deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

* 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We “review for abuse of discretion whether

the BIA clearly departs from its own standards.” Mejia v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 1118,

1121 (9th Cir. 2017). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015).

We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s competency

determination. See Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding

no abuse of discretion when petitioner “did not show an inability to answer

questions or a high level of distraction”); Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474,

477 (BIA 2011). The record does not support any argument that the agency failed

to comply with the procedures mandated by the permanent injunction entered in

Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. CV-10-02211 DMG (DTBx), 2013 WL 8115423

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013), and its implementing order, Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder,

No. CV-10-02211 DMG (DTBx), 2014 WL 5475097 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2014).

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

Fonseca-Martinez 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

Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (denying CAT relief where

possibility of torture was too speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 18-70344