Safi

MEMORANDUM *

We have jurisdiction to consider Safi’s claim for deferral of removal under CAT, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(C), because the IJ denied CAT relief on the merits. See Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 980 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not divest this court of jurisdiction to hear a CAT claim when “an IJ does not rely on an alien’s conviction in denying CAT relief and instead denies relief on the merits”). Because our jurisdiction to review a denial of a motion to reopen derives from our jurisdiction to review the underlying final order of removal, see Sarmadi v. INS, 121 F.3d 1319, 1321 (9th Cir.1997), we also have jurisdiction to consider Safi’s claim that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen.

On the merits, the IJ’s determination that Safi was ineligible for CAT relief was supported by substantial evidence. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir.2005) (the IJ’s “eligibility and entitlement determinations” are subjected to the substantial evidence standard). Safi fails to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Afghanistan. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16 (c),…